Yeah, of course my “no masks” was a slight exaggeration but there were very few around.I saw quite a few, even outside. But a minority for sure.
The concourses are a breeding ground, I'd like to see drinks allowed in the stands to reduce crowding. And I'm sure they could do a lot more on ventilating those areas. And doubtless there are many other small things that added up make a worthwhile difference.
Until hospitalisation is lower, I think we should be taking sensible, low impact measures to reduce transmission. Masking in poorly ventilated crowded areas is one of those, IMO.
What we want to avoid is hospitalisation rising so high as to get really restrictive measures like limiting or eliminating crowds again.
Yeah, of course my “no masks” was a slight exaggeration but there were very few around.
People don’t care for now, if it rockets again people will deal with it but most are enjoying what looks closest to normality they’ve had for 18 months.
Numbers don’t make sense though.All the indications from here, and Israel where there's really good data is that protection against infection is good (~70%) and against severe disease excellent (90%+). These are not as good as against earlier variants, but actually still better than people originally thought likely.
I've no idea about Dumfries specifics, but generally we opened up with an already very high infection rate, which implies a high hospitalisation rate, even if 90% of people are vaccinated and the vaccine is 90% effective against hospitalisation.
Numbers don’t make sense though.
if you take 100,000 people in the U.K. and assume that 80% are vaccinated that means of the original 100,000, 56,000 won’t get the virus (70% protection for the vaccinated) leaving 44,000 that are susceptible to infection. At a relatively high infection rate of say 500 per 100,000 in a seven week period then the number of cases should be around 220. In fact take Dumfries and Galloway with a population of just under 150,000 and based on those assumptions, cases in the last week should be 300 -350. In fact they are over 800. Something really doesn’t add up. Either infection rates are far higher than quoted or the virus s passing through the unvaccinated in a disproportionate way or the vaccine isn’t giving the level of protection quoted. The point is I’m not hearing explanations or experts relating the case numbers to vaccine protection in an intellegent and logical way.
Back to, if 80% are vaccinated and they have 70% protection, we shouldn’t be seeing those case numbers. Full stop. Have a look at the travelling tabby data you can see localised infection per 100,000. 500 is very high rate. I simply applied that to the numbers that would not have protection (all unvaccinated and 30% of vaccinated). Seems logical to me but I’m not a mathematician or virologist.I don't think you can use the numbers like that at all, and I'm afraid I don't fully understand your meaning eg "At a relatively high infection rate of say 500 per 100,000 in a seven week period then the number of cases should be around 220"
The standard model is called SEIR: susceptible, exposed, infected, recovered.
You can't say how many people have been exposed to the virus, which depends on behaviour.
I've not seen any modelling which suggests vaccination effectiveness is wildly different to the numbers quoted.
He/she last seen viewing this thread earlier today. I note that he/she hasn’t posted since Tuesday which is unusual. Hope all is ok.Has anyone heard from @Healdplace ?
Is she ok?
I agree that the infection numbers do seem relatively high in the uk based on our levels of vaccination compared to infection numbers in some other countries. I don’t know what the numbers of vaccinated are in the Czech Republic as mentioned earlier in the thread, but they started on their vaccinations later than in the uk. Perhaps we have waining antibody levels compared to the Czech Republic due to this, allowing for greater uk infections? One things for sure, the government have moved on now, fighting a different fire about the Afghanistan situation. In two weeks time, there will be something else that they will have to fire fight. COVID has dropped down the list of priorities now, and if and when it goes pear shaped, they will start fire fighting it again.Numbers don’t make sense though.
if you take 100,000 people in the U.K. and assume that 80% are vaccinated that means of the original 100,000, 56,000 won’t get the virus (70% protection for the vaccinated) leaving 44,000 that are susceptible to infection. At a relatively high infection rate of say 500 per 100,000 in a seven week period then the number of cases should be around 220. In fact take Dumfries and Galloway with a population of just under 150,000 and based on those assumptions, cases in the last week should be 300 -350. In fact they are over 800. Something really doesn’t add up. Either infection rates are far higher than quoted or the virus s passing through the unvaccinated in a disproportionate way or the vaccine isn’t giving the level of protection quoted. The point is I’m not hearing explanations or experts relating the case numbers to vaccine protection in an intellegent and logical way.