So far, mine have baked coronavirus cookies, made model coronaviruses, pointed out the resemblance between certain sea sponges and a coronavirus, made coronavirus hats, and coronavirus badges. I think they've got it out of their systems, and won't be wanting to be a virus for Hallowe'en, but you never know.
If this is still "the thread" after going quiet since September, the BBC are now reporting that a Pfizer vaccine has a 90% effectiveness at preventing people getting Covid-19.
Just a week or two late for Trump, but perhaps we shouldn't go there...
There's still the unknown of how long the protection persists, and that won't be known until (if) people vaccinated start to contract the virus. Given that the vaccine will initially only be available for a small minority (starting with health care workers, which should relieve some pressure on health services related to staff sickness and potential transmission pathways within hospitals) and larger scale roll out will take some time ideally protection will need to last for a few years - if it's months then the boosters will significantly slow the roll out. Also, big issues with this vaccine in distribution as storage needs to be at very low temperatures. Even if health care workers start getting this shot in December, it's not going to impact the requirements to maintain social distancing until at least Easter ... and, we'll probably still be facing some forms of restriction to slow the spread of the virus this time next year.
Still, it’s good news. Hope it does provide lasting protection for key workers. 90% effective looks OK for starters. The real issue as Alan says is how long it will be effective.
Figures for France show ICU units at 90% occupancy (on average) which is going to be the range at which people start to die because an ICU is not immediately available -- and they are still 5-8 days away from the hospitalisation peak.
Does the 90% effectiveness apply to alleviating symptoms and discomfort in the individual so they can get back to normal or (more usefully) to prevent the infection spreading to others?
If the whole of a population could be vaccinated 'instantly' there won't be a difference but it'll take weeks or months to vaccinate a whole population so the difference matters.
Does the 90% effectiveness apply to alleviating symptoms and discomfort in the individual so they can get back to normal or (more usefully) to prevent the infection spreading to others?
It's a vaccine. It enables the immune system to destroy the virus before it can reproduce and cause illness. So it will also prevent the infection spreading from that individual.
And, as a vaccine there's no point in giving it to someone who is already infected with the virus. So, "alleviating symptoms and discomfort" is a meaningless objective in this instance - that would be what you aim for in a treatment for those infected.
Yes, I got my thinking a bit mixed. If you're infected you need something different from what a vaccine offers which is to stop uninfected people getting it. What I meant was: for those vaccinated and subsequently in contact with the infection, does it only protect them or does it also prevent them passing it on and I see the answer is 'yes'. Thanks.
Be careful with the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine announcement. This was a press release. There's been no peer reviewed publication nor external review. They'll have to repeat the trial and it'll require proper steps of proof.
What makes you think the Phase 3 trial will be repeated? I haven't heard that mentioned by any expert in the media, when asked about things that have to be done before the vaccine becomes available.
This (US) ABC news summary suggests drug companies will seek review for emergency use as soon as a safety milestone has been reached (this month for Pfizer and Moderna.)
Considering how quickly the virus mutates, it will probably become an annual shot. I happen to think some other vaccines coming down the pike will have longer effectiveness; but, for now, I will take what I can take.
It is the proof of concept that is so encouraging - it can be done !
The professor from the Oxford trial on radio 4 yesterday said, in the basis of some other prelim results done between his vaccine and that one, that if Pfizer’s works then theirs probably will and they are hoping to have the data in the next few weeks. It looks like there might be two or three functional vaccines available by Christmas.
The logistical issue will be the “cold chain” required - I think Pfizer’s has to be kept extremely cold (as in -50 or more).
Considering how quickly the virus mutates, it will probably become an annual shot. I happen to think some other vaccines coming down the pike will have longer effectiveness; but, for now, I will take what I can take.
This coronavirus (along with most, possibly all, other coronaviruses) mutates slowly - especially compared to rhinoviruses such as most 'flu and colds. In the year it's been around, we've only got a few hundred very minor variants, and with the possible exception of the Danish mutation that went through mink farms (it's too early to say) none of those variations affect functional parts of the virus. Virologists will have a pretty good handle on knowing which parts of a virus' genes are likely to mutate and target those that don't for vaccine development for the sort of vaccine Pfizer is producing (they're looking for three things to intersect - a gene sequence unique to the target virus, encoding for a protein that's dissimilar to anything produced in the host (in this case, human), and something that's not going to mutate rapidly.
But, yes sooner or later there will be a mutation that will reduce the effectiveness of the virus by changing the protein that the vaccine targets. But, as that would change the function of the protein, it's almost certain that this will result in either reduced transmission or lesser symptoms and so be of lesser concern. Generally mutations of functional proteins will not be beneficial to the transmission of the virus, and these mutations die out (good old natural selection at work). Mutations that survive usually result in a less severe disease - there have been several waves of different coronaviruses in human history, a couple of these mutated and still circulate as part of the mix of viruses causing what we call the common cold. In a century or two this virus will still be around in a mutated form adding to that mix, or will have been eliminated entirely.
The big question is when in a few decades a different coronavirus jumps from an animal host into humans, will the vaccine(s) developed against this one provide any protection at all? Probably not (otherwise all our exposure to coronavirus in the common cold would have been a form of vaccine), and a large part of that seems to relate to the ability of the immune response to remember the target virus, which in natural exposure seems to leave only limited immunity after 6-12 months ... if the same is true of these vaccines then we're talking about booster shots, possibly two or more per year.
if the same is true of these vaccines then we're talking about booster shots, possibly two or more per year.
A small price to pay for a return to normality.
Indeed. There'll be a cost for that - which if the Pfizer one is the only one we have (or, the rest face the same distribution issues) could be substantial for the logistics of mass vaccination as most countries wouldn't be able to keep the vaccine at that temperature for any length of time. And, if you need a booster every four months then those with priority will (obviously) get it first and may well be getting boosters before most of the rest of us get the first shot.
Things will only normalise after about 70-80% of the population are vaccinated, assuming the protection against getting covid19 also extends to protection against infection and asymptomatic transmission of the coronavirus. Which isn't going to be until well into next year for a first set of vaccinations, let alone any boosters required. We do now know for certain that coronavirus spreads much more slowly during summer weather, and hopefully that means that the combination of better weather, vaccination for key workers and vulnerable groups and ongoing minimal social distancing measures (masks in public places, hand washing, work from home for many etc) will mean that by the summer we'll be able to do most of what we want.
What makes you think the Phase 3 trial will be repeated? I haven't heard that mentioned by any expert in the media, when asked about things that have to be done before the vaccine becomes available.
This (US) ABC news summary suggests drug companies will seek review for emergency use as soon as a safety milestone has been reached (this month for Pfizer and Moderna.)
Sorry, it's actually a continuing trial, my error. The news release is on interim data, in the early stages of their phase 3 trial. 180 people have show response to make antibodies. Globe and Mail, quoted below.
The trial, which involves more than 43,000 participants, is not yet completed, but it is the first of any vaccine to yield results in Phase 3, the stage that measures how effective it is.
from earlier in this newspaper article:
On Tuesday, the company said that all of the 180 subjects in the trial who received the vaccine in two doses developed a significant antibody response to the virus, including those who got the lowest dose. The trial included men and women between the ages of 18 and 55. None of the subjects experienced serious side effects, although some reported mild to moderate effects of short duration.
So 180 of 43,000 people so far. That's very preliminary. It's also very good for the company's stock. I'm skeptical of 90% claim, which is beyond what was expected.
As for approval, this occurs country by country. While there will be lots of pressure to approve fast if other countries do, the processes are not the same for countries.
Generally speaking, it's actually easier to keep something "on dry ice" at approx -80C than it is to keep it at -50C. For dry ice, you need to insulate everything and then just top up with dry ice as needed (obviously, a source of dry ice is needed, but that's just compressed CO2). If it needs to be kept warmer then you're into the realms of mechanical cooling, with a bunch of pumps and stuff that need to keep on running all the time.
But, yes sooner or later there will be a mutation that will reduce the effectiveness of the virus by changing the protein that the vaccine targets. But, as that would change the function of the protein, it's almost certain that this will result in either reduced transmission or lesser symptoms and so be of lesser concern. Generally mutations of functional proteins will not be beneficial to the transmission of the virus, and these mutations die out (good old natural selection at work). Mutations that survive usually result in a less severe disease -
A virus (or any communicable disease) need not mutate to a less virulent form to us. It can, like Ebola, live in other species more peacefully and still kill us. Or it can evolve into a form that kills slowly enough that it can still multiply. And the novel coronavirus is there now.
I do realise that this is implied in what you said, but I thought is should be more clear.
We can hope that this virus will follow the route of the common cold, but we cannot bet on this.
You are right that we can't bet on a mutation not creating a more nasty version of this coronavirus. The odds are on our side though, by far the most common means for a disease being very dangerous is if it's evolved within one animal species and then somehow jumps across to another (as this coronavirus has done), for a mild disease to evolve into something more dangerous within the same host species is very unusual - the concern with the Danish mink is that having jumped to yet another species with some further evolution to replicate in mink if the coronavirus jumps back that can provide a means of introducing a more virulent version of the virus.
Given the amount of idiots in some of the countries represented on this board, I think we should make it abundantly clear that we are not guaranteed any easy path forward.
What makes you think the Phase 3 trial will be repeated? I haven't heard that mentioned by any expert in the media, when asked about things that have to be done before the vaccine becomes available.
This (US) ABC news summary suggests drug companies will seek review for emergency use as soon as a safety milestone has been reached (this month for Pfizer and Moderna.)
Sorry, it's actually a continuing trial, my error. The news release is on interim data, in the early stages of their phase 3 trial. 180 people have show response to make antibodies. Globe and Mail, quoted below.
You're confusing two different things - the 180 refers to the Phase I trial of a different vaccine developed by Quebec-based Medicago, not the Pfizer vaccine, two doses of which had been given to nearly 40,000 people as of early November.
Maybe. Though I like to think that the idiots in those countries are not represented by those who actually visit these forums.
I’m not calling anyone who visits SOF an idiot. But those who post do not necessarily represent those who read.
When I said idiots, that was unfair. The mad and those being stupid about this definitely occupy the doubting end, but there is a lot of space between that is occupied by people who need to understand the situation better in hopes they make better choices.
And we definitely have at least one outspoken doubter posting here. So the odds are that we have lurkers who are less than perfectly informed.
Maybe. Though I like to think that the idiots in those countries are not represented by those who actually visit these forums.
The problem is that it's the "idiots" that drive the spread of Covid. The spread seems to be driven by bars, restaurants, and similar establishments. I understand the desire of the hospitality "industry" to preserve their livelihoods, but their entire existence is rather predicated on people doing things that we know are high-risk for virus transfer.
And I agree with lilbuddha that many of those aren't actually idiots so much as they are people who have been lied to and confused by mixed messages, particularly those coming from the occupant of the White House and his fellow travellers.
I've updates my figures for total death increases for the 5 weeks of October, from ONS statistics.
So we have the three comparisons:
4.08% 1.46% 6.77% 10.04% 10.07% compare with average of last 5 yrs
1.11% -1.00% 5.02% 7.63% 7.46% ditto but adjust for population increase
0.82% -0.85% 3.04% 6.46% 6.41% compare with previous year
In numbers rather than percentages:
390 143 668 980 996
109 -101 504 762 756
81 -85 310 651 656
So clearly something is happening in later October and presumable set to continue for a few weeks yet. It shows also that it is relative easy to spin the numbers, since there is no rule that says what you should compare against.
Washington State Governor Inslee has instituted a modified lockdown for the next month. To wit, all bars, and restaurants are not to allow for in-house seating. Outdoor seating and take out are permissible.
All retail stores can only allow for 25% capacity.
Indoor religious services are also at 25% capacity.
Gyms, Recreational facilities, and bowling alleys are closed for the month. Collegiate and Pro Sports will continue to be allowed with severe restrictions.
Travel restrictions are in place. 14-day quarantine or a negative COVID test within 48 hours of travel.
California, Oregon, and Washington had already limited Thanksgiving gatherings to just immediate family.
I am sure I have gotten some of this wrong.
But let's hope the restrictions will break the back of this exponential growth of the disease.
"We have a road safety ad here in Australia where a man is asked something like "What is an acceptable road death toll figure?" To which he replied "70". At this point, 70 of his family members walk into frame. He quickly changes his answer to zero after this.
This needs to be the theme for covid ads. Make it relatable and personal."
I skimmed the newspaper in my local cafe here and someone at Canterbury University has developed a means whereby 2 people can use the same ventilator, The gadget is printable on a 3D printer and is not patented but available another way (creative commons _ I think - someone else wanted the paper). This could be a gamechanger here as we have a very limited number of ventilators, (which is why we closed borders and locked down early).
Phizer formally applied for emergency approval in the USA today. There will be a public review of the data the first week in December. Distribution will begin by the third week in December. Moderna will also seek emergency approval within the next week.
According to US Today the distribution will be in phases:
Phase 1a will be first responders and hospital workers
Phase 1b will be elderly in nursing homes and people over 65 with two comorbid conditions,
Phase 2 will be anyone else over 65
Phase 3 will be college students and people in other institutions.
Phase 4 will be everyone else.
The hope will be everyone should have access to the vaccine by the summer.
Well, there's me fucked, with my comorbid conditions but a bit too young. Oh well. (Yeah, I'll smack myself later for daring to whine when i should be glad (and am!) That there's a vaccine at all!
Phase 1a will be first responders and hospital workers
Phase 1b will be elderly in nursing homes and people over 65 with two comorbid conditions,
Phase 2 will be anyone else over 65
Phase 3 will be college students and people in other institutions.
Phase 4 will be everyone else.
I can’t help thinking that by the time they reach phase 4 the anti-vaxers will be publishing all kinds of stories about how many people who’ve had it have died already. Focusing on the old and sick first seems to be playing right into their hands.
Phase 1a will be first responders and hospital workers
Phase 1b will be elderly in nursing homes and people over 65 with two comorbid conditions,
Phase 2 will be anyone else over 65
Phase 3 will be college students and people in other institutions.
Phase 4 will be everyone else.
I can’t help thinking that by the time they reach phase 4 the anti-vaxers will be publishing all kinds of stories about how many people who’ve had it have died already. Focusing on the old and sick first seems to be playing right into their hands.
They will say that, but the vaccine needs to be distributed with regard to the actual risks associated with the disease not the scientific illiteracy of a vocal minority.
Seems to me they’d be better off focusing on vaccinating people who are actually going to be out and about a lot of the time rather than those who will mostly be staying at home anyway. It’s as if they’ve made the decision of who to prioritise based on which order will extend lockdown restrictions for the longest possible time.
Phase 1a will be first responders and hospital workers
Phase 1b will be elderly in nursing homes and people over 65 with two comorbid conditions,
Phase 2 will be anyone else over 65
Phase 3 will be college students and people in other institutions.
Phase 4 will be everyone else.
I can’t help thinking that by the time they reach phase 4 the anti-vaxers will be publishing all kinds of stories about how many people who’ve had it have died already. Focusing on the old and sick first seems to be playing right into their hands.
They will say that, but the vaccine needs to be distributed with regard to the actual risks associated with the disease not the scientific illiteracy of a vocal minority.
Absolutely agree - the influence of age on infection fatality rate is stark, as shown in this (England, August) data:
>75 11.6% die
65-74 3.1% die
45-64 0.5% die
15-44 0.03% die
That data does not take account of underlying conditions, I think. In addition, those at most risk are more likely to have severe cases of the disease and lead to greater strain on health services, with risk of affecting treatment for other serious conditions.
Gender is a factor too, but looking at the numbers it seems it is still a better risk match to vaccinate (for example) all over 65s rather focussing on gender. As I understand it, at present the UK only has guaranteed vaccine orders to supply NHS workers, social care workers, over 65s and the especially vulnerable anyway.
Part of that prioritisation (and the UK government list is similar, except for not putting university kids at a higher position) reflects some of the unknowns of the virus and the aim of our lockdowns to prevent the health services collapsing under the weight of the pandemic.
Of particular relevance is the unknown extent to which the immune response generated by the vaccine reduces transmission. It's known that it prevents >80% of infections leading to covid19, but it's possible that people can be infected and still be infectious even if the vaccine means they don't proceed to develop symptoms (though, it's very unlikely that people will be as infectious or infectious for as long compared to someone who hasn't been vaccinated).
If the vaccines mean those who develop an immune response can no longer transmit the virus then a potentially very effective approach is to start vaccinating those who are most likely to come into contact with people - health care workers and hospitalised patients, care home staff and residents, teachers, bus and taxi drivers, shop and hospitality staff - break the chains of transmission and then the vulnerable people aren't going to be exposed. This is also useful as we don't know how effective the vaccines will be in more vulnerable groups (because they weren't included in the trials to a large extent), so the priority goes to those groups we know where it'll be most effective.
However, if we don't know for certain that transmission is going to be significantly cut by immunisation then a vaccination programme to break the chains of transmission could be highly counter productive - you vaccinate people, who then feel it's safe to come out of lockdown (and, for them it would be) which then allows the virus to run wild through the population and there's nothing to stop it from getting to the vulnerable groups who either haven't been vaccinated (because others were prioritised) or the vaccine is a lot less effective - and even at 90%, that means that if it gets into a care home then 10% of the residents will be vulnerable to covid and potential hospital treatment which would be a significant strain on health services.
Prioritising the vulnerable groups is a lower-risk strategy, it will result in reduced pressure on health services even if the vaccine is less effective in those groups, although it will require the rest of us to continue social distancing for a while longer to maintain protection of those still to be vaccinated or for whom the vaccine was ineffective. Prioritising those most likely to transmit the virus is a higher-risk strategy as it relies on an unknown reduction in infectiousness resulting from vaccination, but will mean the less vulnerable in our nations can come out of lockdown sooner (the big risk being that if there's a vaccination programme that doesn't cut transmission and we come out of lockdown before the virus incidence is reduced significantly then we kill granny, a lot of grannies and grandads and swamp the health service).
The safest route would be to maintain lockdown measures until after vaccination of both vulnerable groups and those most likely to be within chains of transmission (taxi and bus drivers, shop workers etc) ... but politically would it be acceptable to maintain lockdown restrictions until Easter even as more and more people get the vaccine?
Part of that prioritisation (and the UK government list is similar, except for not putting university kids at a higher position) reflects some of the unknowns of the virus and the aim of our lockdowns to prevent the health services collapsing under the weight of the pandemic.
Of particular relevance is the unknown extent to which the immune response generated by the vaccine reduces transmission. It's known that it prevents >80% of infections leading to covid19, but it's possible that people can be infected and still be infectious even if the vaccine means they don't proceed to develop symptoms (though, it's very unlikely that people will be as infectious or infectious for as long compared to someone who hasn't been vaccinated).
If the vaccines mean those who develop an immune response can no longer transmit the virus then a potentially very effective approach is to start vaccinating those who are most likely to come into contact with people - health care workers and hospitalised patients, care home staff and residents, teachers, bus and taxi drivers, shop and hospitality staff - break the chains of transmission and then the vulnerable people aren't going to be exposed. This is also useful as we don't know how effective the vaccines will be in more vulnerable groups (because they weren't included in the trials to a large extent), so the priority goes to those groups we know where it'll be most effective.
However, if we don't know for certain that transmission is going to be significantly cut by immunisation then a vaccination programme to break the chains of transmission could be highly counter productive - you vaccinate people, who then feel it's safe to come out of lockdown (and, for them it would be) which then allows the virus to run wild through the population and there's nothing to stop it from getting to the vulnerable groups who either haven't been vaccinated (because others were prioritised) or the vaccine is a lot less effective - and even at 90%, that means that if it gets into a care home then 10% of the residents will be vulnerable to covid and potential hospital treatment which would be a significant strain on health services.
Prioritising the vulnerable groups is a lower-risk strategy, it will result in reduced pressure on health services even if the vaccine is less effective in those groups, although it will require the rest of us to continue social distancing for a while longer to maintain protection of those still to be vaccinated or for whom the vaccine was ineffective. Prioritising those most likely to transmit the virus is a higher-risk strategy as it relies on an unknown reduction in infectiousness resulting from vaccination, but will mean the less vulnerable in our nations can come out of lockdown sooner (the big risk being that if there's a vaccination programme that doesn't cut transmission and we come out of lockdown before the virus incidence is reduced significantly then we kill granny, a lot of grannies and grandads and swamp the health service).
The safest route would be to maintain lockdown measures until after vaccination of both vulnerable groups and those most likely to be within chains of transmission (taxi and bus drivers, shop workers etc) ... but politically would it be acceptable to maintain lockdown restrictions until Easter even as more and more people get the vaccine?
Very useful reflection.
In addition to which, There may actually be more flexibility about the kind of restrictions once there is at least some degree of protection in place that helps to reduce R. That might enable - say - current level four areas in Scotland to be level three, and so on. With vaccinations doing some of the work of breaking the chains of transmission and reducing pressure on health services, there may be more sophisticated options available than the more extreme forms of lockdown.
Comments
It's on "Coronavirus Biology", so you may want to brush up on your cellular anatomy. Be forewarned - you will hear the term "endoplasmic reticulum"!
Just a week or two late for Trump, but perhaps we shouldn't go there...
If the whole of a population could be vaccinated 'instantly' there won't be a difference but it'll take weeks or months to vaccinate a whole population so the difference matters.
It's a vaccine. It enables the immune system to destroy the virus before it can reproduce and cause illness. So it will also prevent the infection spreading from that individual.
I've heard them described as friendly creatures, if somewhat aloof, but I daresay they won't mind sharing a few nanobodies with us...
This (US) ABC news summary suggests drug companies will seek review for emergency use as soon as a safety milestone has been reached (this month for Pfizer and Moderna.)
The professor from the Oxford trial on radio 4 yesterday said, in the basis of some other prelim results done between his vaccine and that one, that if Pfizer’s works then theirs probably will and they are hoping to have the data in the next few weeks. It looks like there might be two or three functional vaccines available by Christmas.
The logistical issue will be the “cold chain” required - I think Pfizer’s has to be kept extremely cold (as in -50 or more).
But, yes sooner or later there will be a mutation that will reduce the effectiveness of the virus by changing the protein that the vaccine targets. But, as that would change the function of the protein, it's almost certain that this will result in either reduced transmission or lesser symptoms and so be of lesser concern. Generally mutations of functional proteins will not be beneficial to the transmission of the virus, and these mutations die out (good old natural selection at work). Mutations that survive usually result in a less severe disease - there have been several waves of different coronaviruses in human history, a couple of these mutated and still circulate as part of the mix of viruses causing what we call the common cold. In a century or two this virus will still be around in a mutated form adding to that mix, or will have been eliminated entirely.
The big question is when in a few decades a different coronavirus jumps from an animal host into humans, will the vaccine(s) developed against this one provide any protection at all? Probably not (otherwise all our exposure to coronavirus in the common cold would have been a form of vaccine), and a large part of that seems to relate to the ability of the immune response to remember the target virus, which in natural exposure seems to leave only limited immunity after 6-12 months ... if the same is true of these vaccines then we're talking about booster shots, possibly two or more per year.
A small price to pay for a return to normality.
Things will only normalise after about 70-80% of the population are vaccinated, assuming the protection against getting covid19 also extends to protection against infection and asymptomatic transmission of the coronavirus. Which isn't going to be until well into next year for a first set of vaccinations, let alone any boosters required. We do now know for certain that coronavirus spreads much more slowly during summer weather, and hopefully that means that the combination of better weather, vaccination for key workers and vulnerable groups and ongoing minimal social distancing measures (masks in public places, hand washing, work from home for many etc) will mean that by the summer we'll be able to do most of what we want.
That's (more or less) the sublimation point of Carbon Dioxide. You might have encountered a newspaper's translation of "we keep it on dry ice".
Sorry, it's actually a continuing trial, my error. The news release is on interim data, in the early stages of their phase 3 trial. 180 people have show response to make antibodies. Globe and Mail, quoted below.
from earlier in this newspaper article:
So 180 of 43,000 people so far. That's very preliminary. It's also very good for the company's stock. I'm skeptical of 90% claim, which is beyond what was expected.
As for approval, this occurs country by country. While there will be lots of pressure to approve fast if other countries do, the processes are not the same for countries.
I do realise that this is implied in what you said, but I thought is should be more clear.
We can hope that this virus will follow the route of the common cold, but we cannot bet on this.
When I said idiots, that was unfair. The mad and those being stupid about this definitely occupy the doubting end, but there is a lot of space between that is occupied by people who need to understand the situation better in hopes they make better choices.
And we definitely have at least one outspoken doubter posting here. So the odds are that we have lurkers who are less than perfectly informed.
The problem is that it's the "idiots" that drive the spread of Covid. The spread seems to be driven by bars, restaurants, and similar establishments. I understand the desire of the hospitality "industry" to preserve their livelihoods, but their entire existence is rather predicated on people doing things that we know are high-risk for virus transfer.
And I agree with lilbuddha that many of those aren't actually idiots so much as they are people who have been lied to and confused by mixed messages, particularly those coming from the occupant of the White House and his fellow travellers.
So we have the three comparisons:
4.08% 1.46% 6.77% 10.04% 10.07% compare with average of last 5 yrs
1.11% -1.00% 5.02% 7.63% 7.46% ditto but adjust for population increase
0.82% -0.85% 3.04% 6.46% 6.41% compare with previous year
In numbers rather than percentages:
390 143 668 980 996
109 -101 504 762 756
81 -85 310 651 656
So clearly something is happening in later October and presumable set to continue for a few weeks yet. It shows also that it is relative easy to spin the numbers, since there is no rule that says what you should compare against.
All retail stores can only allow for 25% capacity.
Indoor religious services are also at 25% capacity.
Gyms, Recreational facilities, and bowling alleys are closed for the month. Collegiate and Pro Sports will continue to be allowed with severe restrictions.
Travel restrictions are in place. 14-day quarantine or a negative COVID test within 48 hours of travel.
California, Oregon, and Washington had already limited Thanksgiving gatherings to just immediate family.
I am sure I have gotten some of this wrong.
But let's hope the restrictions will break the back of this exponential growth of the disease.
Just when you think you've seen everything .....
"We have a road safety ad here in Australia where a man is asked something like "What is an acceptable road death toll figure?" To which he replied "70". At this point, 70 of his family members walk into frame. He quickly changes his answer to zero after this.
This needs to be the theme for covid ads. Make it relatable and personal."
And show them on a loop to this idiot. 🙄
My friend, a retired nurse, has been recruited to take part.
According to US Today the distribution will be in phases:
Phase 1a will be first responders and hospital workers
Phase 1b will be elderly in nursing homes and people over 65 with two comorbid conditions,
Phase 2 will be anyone else over 65
Phase 3 will be college students and people in other institutions.
Phase 4 will be everyone else.
The hope will be everyone should have access to the vaccine by the summer.
I can’t help thinking that by the time they reach phase 4 the anti-vaxers will be publishing all kinds of stories about how many people who’ve had it have died already. Focusing on the old and sick first seems to be playing right into their hands.
They will say that, but the vaccine needs to be distributed with regard to the actual risks associated with the disease not the scientific illiteracy of a vocal minority.
Absolutely agree - the influence of age on infection fatality rate is stark, as shown in this (England, August) data:
>75 11.6% die
65-74 3.1% die
45-64 0.5% die
15-44 0.03% die
That data does not take account of underlying conditions, I think. In addition, those at most risk are more likely to have severe cases of the disease and lead to greater strain on health services, with risk of affecting treatment for other serious conditions.
Gender is a factor too, but looking at the numbers it seems it is still a better risk match to vaccinate (for example) all over 65s rather focussing on gender. As I understand it, at present the UK only has guaranteed vaccine orders to supply NHS workers, social care workers, over 65s and the especially vulnerable anyway.
The rest of us will have to wait a bit longer.
Of particular relevance is the unknown extent to which the immune response generated by the vaccine reduces transmission. It's known that it prevents >80% of infections leading to covid19, but it's possible that people can be infected and still be infectious even if the vaccine means they don't proceed to develop symptoms (though, it's very unlikely that people will be as infectious or infectious for as long compared to someone who hasn't been vaccinated).
If the vaccines mean those who develop an immune response can no longer transmit the virus then a potentially very effective approach is to start vaccinating those who are most likely to come into contact with people - health care workers and hospitalised patients, care home staff and residents, teachers, bus and taxi drivers, shop and hospitality staff - break the chains of transmission and then the vulnerable people aren't going to be exposed. This is also useful as we don't know how effective the vaccines will be in more vulnerable groups (because they weren't included in the trials to a large extent), so the priority goes to those groups we know where it'll be most effective.
However, if we don't know for certain that transmission is going to be significantly cut by immunisation then a vaccination programme to break the chains of transmission could be highly counter productive - you vaccinate people, who then feel it's safe to come out of lockdown (and, for them it would be) which then allows the virus to run wild through the population and there's nothing to stop it from getting to the vulnerable groups who either haven't been vaccinated (because others were prioritised) or the vaccine is a lot less effective - and even at 90%, that means that if it gets into a care home then 10% of the residents will be vulnerable to covid and potential hospital treatment which would be a significant strain on health services.
Prioritising the vulnerable groups is a lower-risk strategy, it will result in reduced pressure on health services even if the vaccine is less effective in those groups, although it will require the rest of us to continue social distancing for a while longer to maintain protection of those still to be vaccinated or for whom the vaccine was ineffective. Prioritising those most likely to transmit the virus is a higher-risk strategy as it relies on an unknown reduction in infectiousness resulting from vaccination, but will mean the less vulnerable in our nations can come out of lockdown sooner (the big risk being that if there's a vaccination programme that doesn't cut transmission and we come out of lockdown before the virus incidence is reduced significantly then we kill granny, a lot of grannies and grandads and swamp the health service).
The safest route would be to maintain lockdown measures until after vaccination of both vulnerable groups and those most likely to be within chains of transmission (taxi and bus drivers, shop workers etc) ... but politically would it be acceptable to maintain lockdown restrictions until Easter even as more and more people get the vaccine?
Only if you don’t count the entire population being locked down as a risk.
Very useful reflection.
In addition to which, There may actually be more flexibility about the kind of restrictions once there is at least some degree of protection in place that helps to reduce R. That might enable - say - current level four areas in Scotland to be level three, and so on. With vaccinations doing some of the work of breaking the chains of transmission and reducing pressure on health services, there may be more sophisticated options available than the more extreme forms of lockdown.