Coronavirus (2021) thread

[Marvin]

Seems obvious now but there is an explicit change in strategy now.

We want to keep the epidemic down but the focus is no longer on reducing case numbers but in keeping serious illness down. I heard a few journalists make this claim last week, and now I've seen SAGE members say the same. It makes sense because the bottom line is that the only thing that matters is serious illness but I have one concern..

If we accept that the epidemic will grow as we re-open and we continue to re-open as long as hospitalisation numbers are kept in check, what happens with the growth of new variants? In a couple of months they could represent a significant fraction of the virus depending on what their rate of growth is in a vaccinated population. This seems to me a bit of an unknown. Had it not been for the variants, I'd be comfortable with what was being proposed but they make me nervous because if they start replicating significantly we could be storing up a problem for the future. I've seen journalists ask pointed questions to people like Dr Susan Hopkins and their answers were evasive or we don't know. This to me seems a bit of a gamble. I'd open up but retain the R rate and new infections as a control because I dont think we know what the potential risks are of the variant viruses are. Can they lead to a more resistant strain that can generate significant illness? If we can't answer that, shoul we be relaxing control on growth of the epidemic?

 

[Nightmare Walking]

Seems obvious now but there is an explicit change in strategy now.

We want to keep the epidemic down but the focus is no longer on reducing case numbers but in keeping serious illness down. I heard a few journalists make this claim last week, and now I've seen SAGE members say the same. It makes sense because the bottom line is that the only thing that matters is serious illness but I have one concern..

If we accept that the epidemic will grow as we re-open and we continue to re-open as long as hospitalisation numbers are kept in check, what happens with the growth of new variants? In a couple of months they could represent a significant fraction of the virus depending on what their rate of growth is in a vaccinated population. This seems to me a bit of an unknown. Had it not been for the variants, I'd be comfortable with what was being proposed but they make me nervous because if they start replicating significantly we could be storing up a problem for the future. I've seen journalists ask pointed questions to people like Dr Susan Hopkins and their answers were evasive or we don't know. This to me seems a bit of a gamble. I'd open up but retain the R rate and new infections as a control because I dont think we know what the potential risks are of the variant viruses are. Can they lead to a more resistant strain that can generate significant illness? If we can't answer that, shoul we be relaxing control on growth of the epidemic?

There will always be new variants as we will never eradicate the virus. We have to learn to live with it, there is no other option.

 

[give it to gordon]

Thanks mrbelfry. In the first wave, we highlighted the idiots in Manchester with bouncy castle parties and the Dippers with their “title celebrations”. Now we seem to have have plenty of Covidiots in Kent and Glasgow. Lockdown fatigue has resurfaced in a big way and they was always likely to happen.

This thread has (recently) focussed on Covidiots in other parts of Europe (rightly so in the case of some political leaders) but our own Covidiots seem to get ignored, these days, who have done much more damage to our own population.

I get what you are saying about lockdown fatigue, but for that to happen you need them to be following lockdown in the first place !.
Something in my area that I have seen very little of, as I have mentioned before, I wont go over it again ;)

Thankfully since January the government have told me to shield so with not going to work, abit annoyed I was going to work when I shouldn't have been, but !.I dont know if lockdown has been followed stricter this last few months. I would guess not. But I was getting very scared of working in and around the town, with so many people ignoring lockdown.

I am not surprised a new strain form in kent.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Seems obvious now but there is an explicit change in strategy now.

We want to keep the epidemic down but the focus is no longer on reducing case numbers but in keeping serious illness down. I heard a few journalists make this claim last week, and now I've seen SAGE members say the same. It makes sense because the bottom line is that the only thing that matters is serious illness but I have one concern..

If we accept that the epidemic will grow as we re-open and we continue to re-open as long as hospitalisation numbers are kept in check, what happens with the growth of new variants? In a couple of months they could represent a significant fraction of the virus depending on what their rate of growth is in a vaccinated population. This seems to me a bit of an unknown. Had it not been for the variants, I'd be comfortable with what was being proposed but they make me nervous because if they start replicating significantly we could be storing up a problem for the future. I've seen journalists ask pointed questions to people like Dr Susan Hopkins and their answers were evasive or we don't know. This to me seems a bit of a gamble. I'd open up but retain the R rate and new infections as a control because I dont think we know what the potential risks are of the variant viruses are. Can they lead to a more resistant strain that can generate significant illness? If we can't answer that, shoul we be relaxing control on growth of the epidemic?

and it's of no consolation to those of us who if we have any sense have to hide away for months yet whilst under pressure to go back to the office with people who won't behave because they'll think they're immune, with our social spaces ruined because everyone will be out uncontrolled so we can't go for safe exercise as we haven't been vaccinated yet.

Not to mention it's dicing with will the current vaccine work against an elusive variant and if not, we're back to stage 1 if not in an even worse position.

Ultimately we live in a truly discriminatory state now. This is a legitimate gripe around systemic inequality because we truly have the "haves and have nots" and the government and scientists are pandering to the former with little supportive evidence at the expense of the latter, and there's no assurance that any individual in the latter category is safe from serious illness in the general population yet we're about to be forced into it, as young teaching staff are today, and used as expendable victims so that others can do what they want at their expense. Leaves a very bitter taste and won't be forgotten or forgiven for generations to come.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Seems obvious now but there is an explicit change in strategy now.

We want to keep the epidemic down but the focus is no longer on reducing case numbers but in keeping serious illness down. I heard a few journalists make this claim last week, and now I've seen SAGE members say the same. It makes sense because the bottom line is that the only thing that matters is serious illness but I have one concern..

If we accept that the epidemic will grow as we re-open and we continue to re-open as long as hospitalisation numbers are kept in check, what happens with the growth of new variants? In a couple of months they could represent a significant fraction of the virus depending on what their rate of growth is in a vaccinated population. This seems to me a bit of an unknown. Had it not been for the variants, I'd be comfortable with what was being proposed but they make me nervous because if they start replicating significantly we could be storing up a problem for the future. I've seen journalists ask pointed questions to people like Dr Susan Hopkins and their answers were evasive or we don't know. This to me seems a bit of a gamble. I'd open up but retain the R rate and new infections as a control because I dont think we know what the potential risks are of the variant viruses are. Can they lead to a more resistant strain that can generate significant illness? If we can't answer that, shoul we be relaxing control on growth of the epidemic?

I agree up to a point Marvin. The strategy about protecting the NHS was always about ensuring the range of NHS services can be recovered / sustained over time. The number of cases is an input and previously it was a factor dictating the amount of serious illness. Widespread take up of the vaccine reduce the importance of this input. It’s always been about serious illness mate.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

I get what you are saying about lockdown fatigue, but for that to happen you need them to be following lockdown in the first place !.
Something in my area that I have seen very little of, as I have mentioned before, I wont go over it again ;)

Thankfully since January the government have told me to shield so with not going to work, abit annoyed I was going to work when I shouldn't have been, but !.I dont know if lockdown has been followed stricter this last few months. I would guess not. But I was getting very scared of working in and around the town, with so many people ignoring lockdown.

I am not surprised a new strain form in kent.

Thanks give it a go Gordon. I had your posts in the back of my mind and I think it was mrbelfry who reminded me about your experiences. I agree there have been too many piss takers in people’s localities and that affects people’s safety. My main point was that is getting overlooked with all the jingoistic posts we’ve seen on this thread in recent times.

 

[give it to gordon]

Thanks give it a go Gordon. I had your posts in the back of my mind and I think it was mrbelfry who reminded me about your experiences. I agree there have been too many piss takers in people’s localities and that affects people’s safety. My main point was that is getting overlooked with all the jingoistic posts we’ve seen on this thread in recent times.

Ok ;) I only read from where I was mentioned !

 

[Mr Coopz]

Seems obvious now but there is an explicit change in strategy now.

We want to keep the epidemic down but the focus is no longer on reducing case numbers but in keeping serious illness down. I heard a few journalists make this claim last week, and now I've seen SAGE members say the same. It makes sense because the bottom line is that the only thing that matters is serious illness but I have one concern..

If we accept that the epidemic will grow as we re-open and we continue to re-open as long as hospitalisation numbers are kept in check, what happens with the growth of new variants? In a couple of months they could represent a significant fraction of the virus depending on what their rate of growth is in a vaccinated population. This seems to me a bit of an unknown. Had it not been for the variants, I'd be comfortable with what was being proposed but they make me nervous because if they start replicating significantly we could be storing up a problem for the future. I've seen journalists ask pointed questions to people like Dr Susan Hopkins and their answers were evasive or we don't know. This to me seems a bit of a gamble. I'd open up but retain the R rate and new infections as a control because I dont think we know what the potential risks are of the variant viruses are. Can they lead to a more resistant strain that can generate significant illness? If we can't answer that, shoul we be relaxing control on growth of the epidemic?

Nothing about the worry of future variants is unreasonable, my only uncertainty is what does that mean long term though to keep them in check ? We can’t keep having lockdowns, we can’t social distance from our family and friends for years on end. Furlough isn’t a viable long term solution. We can hand sanitize at every indoor event and wear masks if ill or even during winter but beyond that, how else are we supposed to keep covid infections in check without reintroducing these horribly socially restrictive measures ? If the threats of vaccine resistant variants is always a cause for great concern, then does that mean we can’t ever truly have our lives back ? Not downplaying future variants but what are we honestly expected to do, we can’t keep living like this.

 

[Marvin]

I agree up to a point Marvin. The strategy about protecting the NHS was always about ensuring the range of NHS services can be recovered / sustained over time. The number of cases is an input and previously it was a factor dictating the amount of serious illness. Widespread take up of the vaccine reduce the importance of this input. It’s always been about serious illness mate.

I know it's always been about serious illness but we seem to have an unknown here. In 6-8 weeks time what will be the threat of variants? We seem to be talking about balance of probability and even the experts seem uncertain. Whilst there is uncertainty, I would prefer caution. Open up but only in so far as new cases / R is below . But we seem prepared to go beyond that. I'd have been fine with that prior to the variants but now this is an area I don't think we understand. If someone can say with a high degree of confidence that the scope for vaccine evasion is minimal and that we will certainly have a vaccine that is very effective against the variants in a short period of time, and that this view is credible then great. As it is I have followed the news and my assessment is we're gambling with an unknown.

 

[Marvin]

Nothing about the worry of future variants is unreasonable, my only uncertainty is what does that mean long term though to keep them in check ? We can’t keep having lockdowns, we can’t social distance from our family and friends for years on end. Furlough isn’t a viable long term solution. We can hand sanitize at every indoor event and wear masks if ill or even during winter but beyond that, how else are we supposed to keep covid infections in check without reintroducing these horribly socially restrictive measures ? If the threats of vaccine resistant variants is always a cause for great concern, then does that mean we can’t ever truly have our lives back ? Not downplaying future variants but what are we honestly expected to do, we can’t keep living like this.

We have scope to vaccinate another 20m adults so we can bring the epidemic down to much lower levels without taking risks in fostering a pool of virus that could move beyond the scope of our rising levels of immunity.

I think there is confidence of a variant specific vaccines for the Autumn. I'd just like to get there keeping a lid on something that we don't seem to have a good handle on.