Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

[Silver Cobra]

BBC reporting this morning that Pfizer and AZ...

Covid: Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs work against Indian variant - study

They are effective against symptomatic disease but protection is low after only one dose, a study says.

www.bbc.co.uk

The case for delaying the next stage of reopening is looking strong unless 2nd doses can be delivered faster.

It's interesting you say that, as within the same article, Matt Hancock is quoted to be 'increasingly confident' of the next stage being able to go ahead.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock said the findings made him "increasingly confident" the final stage of easing restrictions in England could take place on 21 June.

Though with the track record of this government, I guess it does make sense to remain sceptical.

 

[greyman42]

The case for delaying the next stage of reopening is looking strong unless 2nd doses can be delivered faster.

Is that a fact. Where do you get your information from?

 

[peters]

Is that a fact. Where do you get your information from?

As you'll be aware one of the forum rules is:

"If referring to an external source you should put the text in QUOTE tags, provide details of the source and make a relevant comment to promote discussion."

Forum Rules

General Rules It is your responsibility to ensure all your contributions to this forum are respectful, appropriate, relevant, legal and accessible. All the rules below apply to all contributions in all areas of the forum. If any content causes you concern, please do not reply/refer to it...

www.railforums.co.uk

The comment after the quote is my opinion based on what the article says to promote discussion. If you disagree with my opinion perhaps you'd like to state why you think restrcitions will still be eased as per the plan drawn up before the Indian variant was discovered?

It's interesting you say that, as within the same article, Matt Hancock is quoted to be 'increasingly confident' of the next stage being able to go ahead.

Looks like the article is being added to all the time, it currently says last updated 5 minutes ago, which is since your reply.

Though with the track record of this government, I guess it does make sense to remain sceptical.

Yes we all remember Boris saying Christmas 2020 easing of restrictions could go ahead as planned and then days later the government said overnight stays over Christmas would not be permitted and those in London would not even be allowed to visit another household.

 

[roversfan2001]

If you disagree with my opinion perhaps you'd like to state why you think restrcitions will still be eased as per the plan drawn up before the Indian variant was discovered?

Is that the Indian variant that the vaccines are still extremely effective against? Yes? Let’s crack on then. Quite simple really.

 

[peters]

Is that the Indian variant that the vaccines are still extremely effective against? Yes? Let’s crack on then. Quite simple really.

Only 33% effective 4 weeks after 1 dose, not that effective even if it's much better than nothing. The quoted 60% and 88% rates (which are definitely effective) are applicable to those who had the 2nd dose more than 3 weeks ago. Hence, why my argument is the 2nd doses need to be administered faster for the June date to be achieved. I think the government accepts that given that they are trying to speed up the rollout of 2nd doses to the over 50s and to those livings in the areas with a high infection rate.

One district of Bolton has an infection rate of 1883 in 100,000*. Areas with 500 in 100,000 were put under level 4 restrictions in December. While towns in Lancashire, Cheshire and Derbyshire bordering Greater Manchester are starting to see infection rates shoot up again.

* Source ONS map: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/interactive-map

 

[DelayRepay]

Well the good news is yesterday we delivered over half a million second doses. That's the most second doses in a single day. Yesterday was also the second highest day for the total (first + second) doses delivered.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Local GP has just said that the 4/5th June vaccination sessions are likely to be the last ones they run.

 

[nlogax]

One district of Bolton has an infection rate of 1883 in 100,000*. Areas with 500 in 100,000 were put under level 4 restrictions in December. While towns in Lancashire, Cheshire and Derbyshire bordering Greater Manchester are starting to see infection rates shoot up again.

High in terms of case number trending but that's about it. As of yet still no corresponding hikes in hospital admission rates. I know there's lag but so far things are continuing to hold. Vaccine doing its job. Keep calm and avoid the media + social media scrum.

 

[takno]

Only 33% effective 4 weeks after 1 dose, not that effective even if it's much better than nothing. The quoted 60% and 88% rates (which are definitely effective) are applicable to those who had the 2nd dose more than 3 weeks ago. Hence, why my argument is the 2nd doses need to be administered faster for the June date to be achieved. I think the government accepts that given that they are trying to speed up the rollout of 2nd doses to the over 50s and to those livings in the areas with a high infection rate.

One district of Bolton has an infection rate of 1883 in 100,000*. Areas with 500 in 100,000 were put under level 4 restrictions in December. While towns in Lancashire, Cheshire and Derbyshire bordering Greater Manchester are starting to see infection rates shoot up again.

* Source ONS map: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/interactive-map

Worth bearing in mind that all these figures apply to preventing infection altogether. The figures for preventing serious illness are not on the face of it significantly different than for other variants

 

[peters]

High in terms of case number trending but that's about it. As of yet still no corresponding hikes in hospital admission rates. I know there's lag but so far things are continuing to hold. Vaccine doing its job. Keep calm and avoid the media + social media scrum.

24 currently in hospital in Bolton with COVID, compared to 12 a week ago is a 100% increase week on week. If that trend continues it would be extremely worrying, even if 24 is a number the local NHS can manage. The last time Bolton hospital had a figure in the mid 20s was in mid September 2020, around the time the government was thinking about a further lockdown in October, only to then put it off and to then do it in November instead.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=nhstrust&areaName=Bolton%20NHS%20Foundation%20Trust

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

24 currently in hospital in Bolton with COVID, compared to 12 a week ago is a 100% increase week on week. If that trend continues it would be extremely worrying, even if 24 is a number the local NHS can manage. The last time Bolton hospital had a figure in the mid 20s was in mid September 2020, around the time the government was thinking about a further lockdown in October, only to then put it off and to then do it in November instead.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=nhstrust&areaName=Bolton%20NHS%20Foundation%20Trust

It is ok for people to contract illnesses and end up in hospital and die, it happens every second of every day. Of that 24 with COVID in hospital, how many are there because of another, more serious underlying health condition? It's unlikely that most are there just for COVID related symptoms.

Stop panicking. We need to accept some level of death, it's good for our planet and is perfectly natural.

1 person with COVID in hospital becoming 2 people is also a 100% increase. The percentages are absolutely meaningless at such miniscule numbers. The only statistic that matters is hospital capacity.

The reality of the situation is that there is not all that many people left that the virus can kill since the vaccine success, and we've seen the weakest already gradually dying off over the last 18 months, so there's really not many fatally vulnerable people left. A lockdown isn't to prevent people from feeling quite poorly with a virus, it's to prevent death that occur as a result of severely vulnerable people being admitted to hospital where no capacity exists.

 

[Darandio]

24 currently in hospital in Bolton with COVID, compared to 12 a week ago is a 100% increase week on week. If that trend continues it would be extremely worrying, even if 24 is a number the local NHS can manage. The last time Bolton hospital had a figure in the mid 20s was in mid September 2020, around the time the government was thinking about a further lockdown in October, only to then put it off and to then do it in November instead.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=nhstrust&areaName=Bolton%20NHS%20Foundation%20Trust

It was 25 on Wednesday and the majority were unvaccinated. We know take up in some communities is low, it's unfortunate but there isn't anything we can do about that. If they had been vaccinated then clearly these numbers wouldn't be so high but it's their choice and I respect that.

If you still then believe this means there is a strong case for delaying the lifting of restrictions then i'm afraid we're doomed because the situation would never end. We absolutely should not delay simply because people are getting ill after to refusing the vaccine.

 

[35B]

It was 25 on Wednesday and the majority were unvaccinated. We know take up in some communities is low, it's unfortunate but there isn't anything we can do about that. If they had been vaccinated then clearly these numbers wouldn't be so high but it's their choice and I respect that.

If you still then believe this means there is a strong case for delaying the lifting of restrictions then i'm afraid we're doomed because the situation would never end. We absolutely should not delay simply because people are getting ill after to refusing the vaccine.

The vaccination level may also be a consequence of how the rollout has been organised. I’ve seen it strongly suggested that the accessibility of vaccination sites has been poor, especially for those without their own transport.

 

[peters]

It was 25 on Wednesday and the majority were unvaccinated. We know take up in some communities is low, it's unfortunate but there isn't anything we can do about that. If they had been vaccinated then clearly these numbers wouldn't be so high but it's their choice and I respect that.

If you still then believe this means there is a strong case for delaying the lifting of restrictions then i'm afraid we're doomed because the situation would never end. We absolutely should not delay simply because people are getting ill after to refusing the vaccine.

It was claimed some of those in hospital have had the 1st vaccine and not yet had the 2nd and in one case someone who has had a 2nd as well.

The government's roadmap was always based on certain conditions being met. It's already been questionable whether we met all the conditions for the last easing of restrictions with vaccine supply delays and cases rising in some areas. The roadmap was based on the Kent variant being the worst transmissible variant, we know the Indian variant is more transmissible.

I'm not saying the government can't or won't ease any restrictions in June but I am saying it's now looking less certain they can drop all restrictions without consequences they want to avoid.

 

[nlogax]

I'm not saying the government can't or won't ease any restrictions in June but I am saying it's now looking less certain they can drop all restrictions without consequences they want to avoid.

As I understand it, the main concern amongst certain parts of the scientific community it's that the timing between a rapidly growing variant and those who've not yet had their second vaccination (or those who have but need to wake two to four weeks until full efficacy). That said, it's pretty hard to fathom how this variant is going to test the NHS in any similar way to the beginning of this year.

We need to keep on with the reopenings, we need to re-establish pre-2020 societal norms and we need to be sharing the UK's surplus vaccines with those countries who currently have insufficient supplies or access.

 

[DelayRepay]

We need to keep on with the reopenings, we need to re-establish pre-2020 societal norms and we need to be sharing the UK's surplus vaccines with those countries who currently have insufficient supplies or access.

The good news on this front is that we should have plenty of AZ vaccine to share soon, given it's not being used for under 40s, so all it's really needed for now is second doses for people who had their first shot of AZ.

 

[nlogax]

The good news on this front is that we should have plenty of AZ vaccine to share soon, given it's not being used for under 40s, so all it's really needed for now is second doses for people who had their first shot of AZ.

I do believe we've agreed to send surplus doses to the COVAX scheme which is good news, and the US (now featuring a human being in charge) has tens of millions of unused doses of AZ which may go a similar route. It's definitely positive.

 

[peters]

We need to keep on with the reopenings, we need to re-establish pre-2020 societal norms and we need to be sharing the UK's surplus vaccines with those countries who currently have insufficient supplies or access.

Even if we ignore the Indian variant and that there's been an unexpected increase in new cases on some areas, anyone who thought June would see a return to how things were in Jan/Feb 2020 is going to be disappointed. International travel restrictions aren't just going to disappear in June, in fact they are likely to be stricter in July 2021 than in July 2020. In July 2020 you could go on holiday to France without getting any tests done.

While this morning the government have announced they are trialing a new method of self-isolation support, you don't trial a new method if you're planning to scrap it in less than a month.

Covid: Parts of England to trial self-isolation support

People in overcrowded homes will be offered alternative accommodation in a bid to improve compliance.

www.bbc.co.uk

The good news on this front is that we should have plenty of AZ vaccine to share soon, given it's not being used for under 40s, so all it's really needed for now is second doses for people who had their first shot of AZ.

Some under 40s could still get AZ, those with certain allergies can't get Pfizer and Moderna isn't available in all areas.

AZ is of course easier to administer in less developed countries plus it's cheaper and it's more effective than some of the other cheap easy to store vaccines, like the Chinese version.

It's also likely those in the higher risk categories are to get a booster shot in the autumn, as soon as September for those who got a 2nd dose in January (before the guidance changed to give 2nd doses around 11 weeks after the 1st.)

The unknown, at present, is anyone who will be over 18 on 1st July 2021 will get offered a vaccine, will that change to vaccinate those who will be Sixth Form age in the next academic year or not? Anyone over 16 can be vaccinated but there's some debate about whether teenagers in developed countries should be vaccinated when older adults in developing countries haven't been vaccinated.

 

[nlogax]

Even if we ignore the Indian variant and that there's been an unexpected increase in new cases on some areas, anyone who thought June would see a return to how things were in Jan/Feb 2020 is going to be disappointed. International travel restrictions aren't just going to disappear in June, in fact they are likely to be stricter in July 2021 than in July 2020. In July 2020 you could go on holiday to France without getting any tests done.

I do agree that anyone expecting us to return to 2019 lifestyles right away - especially in terms of international travel - is going to be seriously disappointed.

However, that shouldn't stop us from advancing down that road. Maybe what we wanted 2021 to be will be what we end up resuming in 2022. Better late than never. Right now I am convinced that 'never' is the policy being pursued by some.

 

[peters]

Right now I am convinced that 'never' is the policy being pursued by some.

I think some people have genuine concerns that return to normal means go back to how it was in 2019, even when a new hybrid model would be more appropriate. For example, local councils are supposed to go back to in person only meetings. While I think councillors should be present in person where possible, having a Zoom option allows those who are away for work purposes to still join the meeting and makes it easier for the public to watch and to ask questions, especially for those who are disabled.

 

[DustyBin]

I do agree that anyone expecting us to return to 2019 lifestyles right away - especially in terms of international travel - is going to be seriously disappointed.

However, that shouldn't stop us from advancing down that road. Maybe what we wanted 2021 to be will be what we end up resuming in 2022. Better late than never. Right now I am convinced that 'never' is the policy being pursued by some.

I agree with all of this.

 

[Crossover]

It was claimed some of those in hospital have had the 1st vaccine and not yet had the 2nd and in one case someone who has had a 2nd as well.

It was never claimed that the vaccine would keep 100% of the vaccinated out of hospital, or even from dying. We are getting to a stage of the tail wagging the dog and as a nation we can't continue on this "zero hospitalisations" charade

 

[VauxhallandI]

I think some people have genuine concerns that return to normal means go back to how it was in 2019, even when a new hybrid model would be more appropriate. For example, local councils are supposed to go back to in person only meetings. While I think councillors should be present in person where possible, having a Zoom option allows those who are away for work purposes to still join the meeting and makes it easier for the public to watch and to ask questions, especially for those who are disabled.

I'd question the sanity of these "some"; do we know who they are? Cranks on the fringe of society and lazy councillors shouldn't be listened to I'm afraid. The party is over.

 

[35B]

I'd question the sanity of these sum; do we know who they are? Cranks on the fringe of society and lazy councillors shouldn't be listened to I'm afraid. The party is over.

It's not about a party - this worker is sick to the back teeth of Teams and Zoom meetings, and longs to revert to real face to face meetings. However, the use of streaming so that the public can observe those meetings has a lot to be said for it.

I think some people have genuine concerns that return to normal means go back to how it was in 2019, even when a new hybrid model would be more appropriate. For example, local councils are supposed to go back to in person only meetings. While I think councillors should be present in person where possible, having a Zoom option allows those who are away for work purposes to still join the meeting and makes it easier for the public to watch and to ask questions, especially for those who are disabled.

Hybrid meetings are really, really, difficult to do properly. While there are times I'd appreciate a hybrid option for meetings (school governor, PCC), my experience at work of balancing a roomful of people with those accessing remotely is that it's a poorer experience for all, that leads to worse discussion, worse decisions, and worse outcomes.

 

[peters]

It was never claimed that the vaccine would keep 100% of the vaccinated out of hospital, or even from dying.

Yep but the assertion by @Darandio was that those people are in hospital because they've chosen not to be vaccinated. There could well be people in hospital who got a 1st vaccine as soon as they were offered it and are still waiting to be offered a 2nd.

It was 25 on Wednesday and the majority were unvaccinated. We know take up in some communities is low, it's unfortunate but there isn't anything we can do about that. If they had been vaccinated then clearly these numbers wouldn't be so high but it's their choice and I respect that.

24 is the Wednesday figure as there's a delay in the reporting. (You seem to have found an extra person?) It was 12 eight days prior to that, hence why I said it was a 100% increase in a week. The next full week figures will be key. A figure of around 48 would be extremely worrying, a figure of <24 would be reassuring and may suggest extra testing in hotspots is the solution.

we can't continue on this "zero hospitalisations" charade

We do need to get to a position where hospital resources can be used for people who don't have COVID again. There's so many operations which haven't been done in the past 14 months and the people who are suffering because of that.

I'd question the sanity of these sum; do we know who they are? Cranks on the fringe of society and lazy councillors shouldn't be listened to I'm afraid. The party is over.

It was Jackie Weaver, from the Cheshire Association of Local Councils who drew attention to it, also known as the person who has 'no authority' in Handforth Parish Council meetings.

I think your response sums up the problem. You're not looking at it from the prospective of the disabled resident who make want to ask a question in the meeting because you're of the opinion councillors are lazy cranks and anything that could make their job easier must be blocked. Perhaps you also don't realise parish councillors aren't paid but parish council meetings have to comply with the same rule as well. If you think you can do a better job than them you can always stand at the next election. Would you even be interested in a voluntary position which you may need to stand for election for?

It's not about a party

Indeed. Anyone who thinks working from home or attending virtual meetings is a party hasn't done it themselves.

 

[VauxhallandI]

It's not about a party - this worker is sick to the back teeth of Teams and Zoom meetings, and longs to revert to real face to face meetings. However, the use of streaming so that the public can observe those meetings has a lot to be said for it.

Hybrid meetings are really, really, difficult to do properly. While there are times I'd appreciate a hybrid option for meetings (school governor, PCC), my experience at work of balancing a roomful of people with those accessing remotely is that it's a poorer experience for all, that leads to worse discussion, worse decisions, and worse outcomes.

The public can attend if the want to; they don't need to be streamed.

 

[Smidster]

The public can attend if the want to; they don't need to be streamed.

Purely on the basis of access and understanding of democracy I think it is a great shame that those kinds of things are reverting to in person only formats.

We should want people to engage if at all possible rather than it only being accessible for people who are able and willing to spend their evenings after work going to the seat of the Council when they might only be interested in one thing.

 

[35B]

The public can attend if the want to; they don't need to be streamed.

My church has started streaming, and will be trying to get people back in. But sharing to those who can't attend - not won't, but can't - is still of significant value. I see no reasons why the same shouldn't be true of councils - after all, the same is true of Parliament, and the same arguments were made about the cameras coming in.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I see what you are saying but I think people should be encouraged to attend in person. Those that are really interested in contributing will attend in person; I'm not sure I want the Council spending money (badly usually) on IT for people that just want to tune in and turn it all in to Facebook with stupid comments etc.

As for the church they can probably afford it as they are the biggest business of them all.

 

[35B]

I see what you are saying but I think people should be encouraged to attend in person. Those that are really interested in contributing will attend in person; I'm not sure I want the Council spending money (badly usually) on IT for people that just want to tune in and turn it all in to Facebook with stupid comments etc.

There's a difference between attending a meeting and observing it as a member of the public - having a meeting streamed or broadcast, and knowing that one may be seen, is a salutary experience.

As for the church they can probably afford it as they are the biggest business of them all.

The church is by no means the biggest business of all, and affording it was a stretch. Without veering off topic, you need to bear in mind that the asset value of the church includes the valuations of things like the buildings - in my area, donations are ~£3m/year short of funding what the church does already.