Continuation Covid-19 and Politics pt 2

[Pixel42]

Keen as I am to be vaccinated ASAP, I have to agree that younger people whose jobs require them to interact with others should be ahead of me in the queue. As a pensioner, staying home and venturing out just once a week to the supermarket for a few more weeks may be irksome, but it's no great hardship.

[Rolfe]

Like you, I'm perfectly content to wait it out a bit longer, but I can see that it might be hard to triage the fit and well pensioners who are perfectly capable of continuing to isolate under their own steam from those others living in the community who may genuinely be at serious risk, especially with the new variant on the loose.

I just had an information leaflet delivered, the second one this year, this one detailing how to access the Health Service for any need, not just covid, and essentially saying, come get your vaccine when you're called and don't screw up the system by trying to second-guess it.

[The Don]

1,820 deaths today in the UK. I hope the peak comes soon when the effects of Christmas mingling have passed.

The number of infections is finally on a downward trend, though still far, far too high. I hope the death count follows in 2-3 weeks.

Edited to add.....

I fear that the government will abandon Covid restrictions, months too early, as soon as the death toll begins to fall.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by The Don

...and it may very well be absolutely the right thing to do to ensure that the emergency services and teachers get vaccinated early because of their interaction with the public.

A competent government would have decided yay or nay on this as part of their vaccination rollout planning, not reactively decided to do it when they started to get negative headlines and complaints in the media from Cressida Dick.

Oh, yes, to be clear, I was merely commenting wryly, not complaining in the least. I had an idea at one point that emergency service workers and other high risk occupations would be higher up the priority order, but that didn't pan out; did I imagine that?

[The Don]

There's concerning, but incomplete, information coming out of Israel that the vaccine may not be having the desired effect:

Quote:

Israel, one of the top countries when it comes to vaccinating against Covid-19, bought large stocks of the jab in exchange for acting as the world's guinea pig.

And scientists are watching data shared by the country keenly, for signs of how effective the vaccine is when given to a whole population.

So there was understandable concern when the man coordinating Israel's Covid response reportedly suggested a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine might not be as effective as reported.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55734257

Israel is pressing ahead, full steam, to vaccinate everyone twice as soon as practicable. In the UK OTOH the second vaccines are only scheduled for 12 weeks after the first and I am concerned that the UK Government will be far more interested in positive headlines about the number of people receiving the first vaccine than half that number being properly vaccinated.

The medical authorities in Israel have disagreed with the initial conclusions:

Quote:

Addressing Prof Nachman Ash's quotes, the Israeli Ministry of Health said: "The comments of the Israeli Covid-19 commissioner regarding the effect of the first dose of the vaccine was out of context and, therefore, inaccurate.

"The commissioner said we have yet to see a decrease in the number of severely ill patients.

"As the second dose is now given to the most vulnerable of the population, we expect to soon see the full protective impact of the vaccine".

To me that only looks like a partial refutation. They're saying that they expect to see an improvement some time after the second vaccinations whereas Prof Nachman Ash was talking about people who had only received the first dose.


Given how quickly Israel is vaccinating and how committed they appear to be to doing it properly, I think they will be very useful as a indicator as to how effective the vaccine is likely to be .

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

I suppose you do have to give them credit for being willing to adapt to what might be a fluid situation but it doesn't give you much confidence in them knowing what the hell they are doing.

A change in policy should be accompanied by the changing information that has caused them to change the policy and that's the bit that is always missing.

For the record I think that vaccinating the people who are most likely to be in contact with the virus and spread it makes sense to me on the face of it. But I don't have the data to be making that determination using anything other than a bit of educated guesswork.

The problem is that there seems to be less "adapting to a fluid situation" & more "bowing to popular pressure/newspaper headlines" with this government meaning that they might just as well be overturning a right decision (in the unlikely event they ever make one).

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

The problem is that there seems to be less "adapting to a fluid situation" & more "bowing to popular pressure/newspaper headlines" with this government meaning that they might just as well be overturning a right decision (in the unlikely event they ever make one).

I agree. My point wasn't to defend them just to point out that changes in policy could be resulting from changes in information given that the situation is changing. Or it could be that they are incompetent assclowns.

The changing of policy doesn't really give us information either way.... but the general level of assclownery demonstrated by this government in everything they do would lead us to suspect the latter.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I see reports today that 'the lockdown isn't working' as infections have risen during January. I think this is misleading, surely? If people stay at home and don't come into contact with other people then they can't spread the virus. Simple as that. If infections aren't reducing it's because people aren't following the rules and/or the rules aren't properly implemented.

Anecdote I know but around here I am seeing about half to three quarters of people still going to work, about half the schoolkids are still going to school as they have 'exemptions' (which in many cases is 'parents want them at school rather than at home') and people are wandering about the streets chatting with each other maskless, visiting people's houses maskless, etc etc.

Not practical I know but it strikes me that if everyone was simply locked in at home for 2 or 3 weeks with no exemptions the virus would be eliminated. So I fail to see how lockdowns can be said to be not working.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

I agree. My point wasn't to defend them just to point out that changes in policy could be resulting from changes in information given that the situation is changing. Or it could be that they are incompetent assclowns.

The changing of policy doesn't really give us information either way.... but the general level of assclownery demonstrated by this government in everything they do would lead us to suspect the latter.

If the information which caused the government to reassess vaccination priorities came from experts then they would have been able to make the decision weeks ago. Instead they have been forced into this move by prominent senior police officers making appeals in the press.

The decision to prioritise police officers may be the right one - I don't know enough to make that call - it's the process that led to the decision that concerns me.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

I see reports today that 'the lockdown isn't working' as infections have risen during January. I think this is misleading, surely? If people stay at home and don't come into contact with other people then they can't spread the virus. Simple as that. If infections aren't reducing it's because people aren't following the rules and/or the rules aren't properly implemented.

Anecdote I know but around here I am seeing about half to three quarters of people still going to work, about half the schoolkids are still going to school as they have 'exemptions' (which in many cases is 'parents want them at school rather than at home') and people are wandering about the streets chatting with each other maskless, visiting people's houses maskless, etc etc.

Not practical I know but it strikes me that if everyone was simply locked in at home for 2 or 3 weeks with no exemptions the virus would be eliminated. So I fail to see how lockdowns can be said to be not working.

Two things:

One: As you point out, "Lockdown" isn't really lockdown. There are so many exceptions and so many people are bending and breaking the rules that it's not really achieving the required objective - to stop people mixing.

Two: "Lockdown", as half-assed as it is in the UK, is actually working but there's a significant time delay between people mixing considerably less and the number of positive tests falling.

As usual, we have a chronic lack of leadership. The UK Government refuses to implement a proper lockdown, it's reluctant to implement a half-assed lockdown and actual enforcement is pretty much non-existent. The government doesn't want t make people unhappy by preventing them doing things they want to do and they're balancing that against public unhappiness about members of their family dying.

edited to add.....

The issue is that there are swathes of the media who are desperate for lockdown not to work, so we can abandon it and get back to life as normal - while tens of thousands a week die I presume.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

I see reports today that 'the lockdown isn't working' as infections have risen during January. I think this is misleading, surely? If people stay at home and don't come into contact with other people then they can't spread the virus. Simple as that. If infections aren't reducing it's because people aren't following the rules and/or the rules aren't properly implemented.

Anecdote I know but around here I am seeing about half to three quarters of people still going to work, about half the schoolkids are still going to school as they have 'exemptions' (which in many cases is 'parents want them at school rather than at home') and people are wandering about the streets chatting with each other maskless, visiting people's houses maskless, etc etc.

Not practical I know but it strikes me that if everyone was simply locked in at home for 2 or 3 weeks with no exemptions the virus would be eliminated. So I fail to see how lockdowns can be said to be not working.

Infections *have* started to come down. Lots of independent estimation methods are showing this, and even hospital admissions. Certainly in England and in Scotland.

Hopefully, deaths will soon start to fall as well.

[The Don]

Another story about the "success" of the vaccine rollout.

Quote:

Nearly two million people in the UK have received their first dose of a Covid vaccine in the past week, government figures show.

By the end of Tuesday 4.61 million people had received their initial jab, up from 2.64 million the week before.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55748645

Quote:

In a statement to the Commons he described this as a "huge feat", saying the government is making "good progress" on its target to vaccinate the top four priority groups by mid-February.

There are 15 million people in the top four priority groups and three-and-a-bit weeks to go until mid-February. At two million a week, the remaining 10+ million top priority vaccination candidates wouldn't get their vaccine until early March.

I suppose the government could re-jig the top four priority groups to make them smaller or redefine mid-February to include parts of March.

This of course assumes that supplies of the vaccine are available, but that's not necessarily the case.

Quote:

Asked about difficulties in getting vaccines to rural areas and whether the Oxford-AstraZeneca could be prioritised for these as it is easier to store, Mr Hancock said the challenge was that supply was "lumpy", with manufacturers working "as fast as possible".

That said, I'm happy to say that they're making better progress than I thought they would. I expected about 1 million a week to be vaccinated - though I had assumed that there would be another 1 million receiving a second vaccine.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by The Don

Another story about the "success" of the vaccine rollout.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55748645



There are 15 million people in the top four priority groups and three-and-a-bit weeks to go until mid-February. At two million a week, the remaining 10+ million top priority vaccination candidates wouldn't get their vaccine until early March.

I suppose the government could re-jig the top four priority groups to make them smaller or redefine mid-February to include parts of March.

This of course assumes that supplies of the vaccine are available, but that's not necessarily the case.



That said, I'm happy to say that they're making better progress than I thought they would. I expected about 1 million a week to be vaccinated - though I had assumed that there would be another 1 million receiving a second vaccine.

Well, they are opening a lot of new vaccination centres today, so that should increase the weekly numbers (assuming they have sufficient supply, which I think is going to be the main limiting factor). On the other hand, notice the weasel words in the plans that everyone will have been offered the jab, not necessarily actually given it. It remains to be seen whether that is a reasonable statement, simply allowing for people who refuse to have the jab for some reason or if it's a way to fudge the numbers by offering a future date for the jab beyond the deadline.

[Captain_Swoop]

Schools around the UK have found that laptops provided by the Government arrived with a virus on them that connected to servers in Russia, raising concerns that hackers could steal data on vulnerable students....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...en-government/

[Rolfe]

[The Don]

More concerns about the long-term future with Covid.

Quote:

Coronavirus will continue to spread "probably for decades to come", a scientist says.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-5...ost_type=share

Quote:

Prof Hunter says there is "no doubt" the vaccination programme will make "a huge difference" and help life get back towards normal.

“We do know that the vaccines are very good at stopping people getting severe illness and dying but don’t really know how well the vaccines work to stop the spread of infection," he says, adding that this means there will continue to be a risk to people who have not had the jab.

[Rolfe]

It may be that we've lost the chance to eliminate this, but I don't really think so. Dammit, we actually did it, we just let it back again. And even if there is a problem of the current vaccines still allowing some spread, first it's very likely to be a lot less spread than from unvaccinated people, and second the intranasal vaccines currently in development will almost certainly stop vaccinated people spreading it.

I do worry when people come out with fatalistic negativity like that. It's as if they're softening us up to accept a horrendous future without protest, because they can't be bothered doing the work needed to eliminate the virus. If we try and don't quite succeed we'll still save a lot of lives, and at least we tried. If we try and succeed, and I think it's certainly possible, it's a huge prize. But it's the people who just want to give in who are being headlined.

The BBC is very culpable in this, and we know they have form for being the mouthpiece of government in this sort of situation. Where are the articles and items from the many scientists who are urging a big push for elimination from Britain? Not on the BBC they aren't. Boris doesn't want to do anything that might mean short term pain even if the long term gain is enormous.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

It may be that we've lost the chance to eliminate this, but I don't really think so. Dammit, we actually did it, we just let it back again. And even if there is a problem of the current vaccines still allowing some spread, first it's very likely to be a lot less spread than from unvaccinated people, and second the intranasal vaccines currently in development will almost certainly stop vaccinated people spreading it.

I do worry when people come out with fatalistic negativity like that. It's as if they're softening us up to accept a horrendous future without protest, because they can't be bothered doing the work needed to eliminate the virus. If we try and don't quite succeed we'll still save a lot of lives, and at least we tried. If we try and succeed, and I think it's certainly possible, it's a huge prize. But it's the people who just want to give in who are being headlined.

The BBC is very culpable in this, and we know they have form for being the mouthpiece of government in this sort of situation. Where are the articles and items from the many scientists who are urging a big push for elimination from Britain? Not on the BBC they aren't. Boris doesn't want to do anything that might mean short term pain even if the long term gain is enormous.

I disagree about the BBC. I think that they're not just parroting the government line and they are providing a conduit for dissenting voices.

Regarding the UK government, I think you're absolutely right, I think it's a double-whammy. Boris Johnson is only interested in positive headlines, hence the repeated u-turns as people switch from being cross about lockdown to being mad about their friends and relatives dying, and vice versa. Boris Johnson is also renowned for not liking to work hard and not liking to plan. The idea of a long term plan involving short-term unpopularity in order to achieve a possible (likely ?) long term popularity is anathema to him.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Evergreen post for those of us under Johnson's government

[Wudang]

Apparently the government is talking of giving £500 to people forced to self-isolate. Some are worried about a Cobra_effect^WP of people desparate enough to risk catching the virus to get the money. I can see a parent watching their kids go hungry being desparate enough to risk it. And this would be most likely among the poorer people with less ability to socially isolate so more likely to spread.

[Mojo]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...accine-england

[Mojo]

BBC reporting R as below 1: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55768033

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Mojo

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...accine-england

I just hope that's the law of unintended consequences and they get it sorted pronto.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by The Don

I disagree about the BBC. I think that they're not just parroting the government line and they are providing a conduit for dissenting voices.

Regarding the UK government, I think you're absolutely right, I think it's a double-whammy. Boris Johnson is only interested in positive headlines, hence the repeated u-turns as people switch from being cross about lockdown to being mad about their friends and relatives dying, and vice versa. Boris Johnson is also renowned for not liking to work hard and not liking to plan. The idea of a long term plan involving short-term unpopularity in order to achieve a possible (likely ?) long term popularity is anathema to him.

See this. I do see the BBC as a major sinner in this respect. There are others of course but people see the BBC as supposedly being impartial and not having an agenda and that has simply never been the case.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

See this. I do see the BBC as a major sinner in this respect. There are others of course but people see the BBC as supposedly being impartial and not having an agenda and that has simply never been the case.

Everything referred to in that article has appeared on the BBC website and or has been mentioned on BBC radio

[Rolfe]

Not exactly vehemently though, and where are in-depth investigations into government corruption? Look at the way they've platformed that astroturf group that's campaigning to have all schools open with no covid precautions, and virtually ignore the genuine parents for safe schools groups.

Look at the way they constantly trot up that superannuated buffoon Pennington no matter how often he's proven wrong, because he's a politically favoured commentator.

But still, this is a bit of a derail. I think we're in agreement over everything except the question of BBC integrity.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Not exactly vehemently though, and where are in-depth investigations into government corruption? Look at the way they've platformed that astroturf group that's campaigning to have all schools open with no covid precautions, and virtually ignore the genuine parents for safe schools groups.

Look at the way they constantly trot up that superannuated buffoon Pennington no matter how often he's proven wrong, because he's a politically favoured commentator.

But still, this is a bit of a derail. I think we're in agreement over everything except the question of BBC integrity.

I think you are wrong about Pennington.

OK, he is a superannuatated buffoon. A bacteriologist commenting on virology. But he is trotted out because he is an available 'rent a quote', not because he is politically favoured. He did the same thing in the last flu pandemic with a Labour government. He doesn't care who the government is so long as he gets interviewed.

[Rolfe]

It's not about Labour or Conservative, but let's not go there.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I just hope that's the law of unintended consequences and they get it sorted pronto.

I suspect that it’s to do with the “hostile environment” mentality combined with a failure to understand that vaccinating people benefits everyone.

[Filippo Lippi]

Something going wrong with vaccinations in Notts, politicians wade in

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi

Something going wrong with vaccinations in Notts, politicians wade in

IMO this is going to be played out repeatedly - people are not going to be getting their second vaccinations until the negative publicity of not giving second vaccinations exceeds the positive publicity of twice as many people receiving the first vaccination.

The BMA are not happy but unless the BMA can generate a wave of negative public opinion, they can go whistle as far as the government is concerned.

[Darat]

I’m getting more and more concerned about how the term “vaccinated” is getting used to refer to people having one dose. One of the few things the UK government is competent at is being dishonest with their language. Only a few outlets are now clarifying that when they give the figures for the “vaccination rollout”, the BBC being among them. It should be made very clear how few people have yet to be “vaccinated” as per the medical guidelines.

[Captain_Swoop]

Gap between Pfizer vaccine doses should be halved, say doctors

Senior doctors are calling on England's chief medical officer to cut the gap between the first and second doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine.

Prof Chris Whitty said extending the maximum wait from three to 12 weeks was a "public health decision" to get the first jab to more people across the UK.

But the British Medical Association said that was "difficult to justify" and should be changed to six weeks.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55777084

[zooterkin]

The biggest problem at the moment seems to be the supply of the vaccine. From my local medical centre:

Quote:

The vaccination programme continues, and we’ll be contacting patients in due course as we proceed through the vaccination cohorts laid down by the NHS. The vaccine supply is intermittent and a little unreliable at this stage, so we have little ability to forward-plan. Please be patient and please do not contact the surgery to ask for an appointment.

From Tim Harford's podcast, the best notice of incoming vaccine supplies that is being given is a week, but at least it is usually arriving when promised.

[Darat]

Which means the UK government will screw up.

What they should be doing now is planning for second jags, which means they have to start to hold back enough doses to cover those upcoming second injections, but they won’t because that means their headline figure “people having one jab that we will say is them being vaccinated” will have to slow down. Which they won’t do because of the bad headlines.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Darat

I’m getting more and more concerned about how the term “vaccinated” is getting used to refer to people having one dose. One of the few things the UK government is competent at is being dishonest with their language. Only a few outlets are now clarifying that when they give the figures for the “vaccination rollout”, the BBC being among them. It should be made very clear how few people have yet to be “vaccinated” as per the medical guidelines.

I completely agree with you, this is worrying me a lot too. Also that people who have had one injection will be lulled into a false sense of security.

And the BBC is absolutely culpable. It seems to consider itself a mouthpiece and a cheerleader for government policy and there's no meaningful scrutiny of bad decisions that are harming people. No attempt to highlight to people the con trick that's being pulled so that they can register a protest. That wouldn't be in accordance with their charter of course.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Darat

Which means the UK government will screw up.

What they should be doing now is planning for second jags, which means they have to start to hold back enough doses to cover those upcoming second injections, but they won’t because that means their headline figure “people having one jab that we will say is them being vaccinated” will have to slow down. Which they won’t do because of the bad headlines.

Exactly. If supply is a problem people are going to miss out on their second injection in the rush to get as many first injections done as possible, and won't be protected. We're heading for another disaster.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I completely agree with you, this is worrying me a lot too. Also that people who have had one injection will be lulled into a false sense of security.

And the BBC is absolutely culpable. It seems to consider itself a mouthpiece and a cheerleader for government policy and there's no meaningful scrutiny of bad decisions that are harming people. No attempt to highlight to people the con trick that's being pulled so that they can register a protest. That wouldn't be in accordance with their charter of course.

No, you seem to consider the BBC to be a mouthpiece and cheerleader.

If it was then the BMA's criticism wouldn't see the light of day. Your complaint appears to be that it doesn't provide a continuous litany of criticism of the government. That's not its job.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I completely agree with you, this is worrying me a lot too. Also that people who have had one injection will be lulled into a false sense of security.

And the BBC is absolutely culpable. It seems to consider itself a mouthpiece and a cheerleader for government policy and there's no meaningful scrutiny of bad decisions that are harming people. No attempt to highlight to people the con trick that's being pulled so that they can register a protest. That wouldn't be in accordance with their charter of course.

Yet they are one of the few that seem to pretty much always mention that the figure is for a single dose not for being vaccinated. Seems strange with your views that they are going against what the UK government is trying to do.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Exactly. If supply is a problem people are going to miss out on their second injection in the rush to get as many first injections done as possible, and won't be protected. We're heading for another disaster.

Yes. The government will screw up the rollout completely.

I hope the devolved governments can plot their own course but I fear that they'll come under increasing pressure if England's vaccination rate is twice theirs, never mind that the devolved governments are vaccinating effectively and the English vaccination programme is just window dressing.