Will Covid 19 impact 2022 season?

[JordanMugen]

I've been in the 10 day quarentine 4 times in the UK since the system started. I've never been contacted, controlled, or checked up on once.

What a mess!

That's why the quarantine has to be supervised, otherwise it just does not work.

It would really be for the best to have 14 days mandatory supervised quarantine for arrivals in every country in the EU as a measure of caution. No free movements between countries. If that means no Formula One in 2021, so be it.

[JordanMugen]

One could argue that Government should make everyone stay home for a month except for food shopping.

Yep, of course that can done. That is a "hard lockdown" and was enacted in South Australia... It's very easy to do. All business were shut the very next day after it was announced (apart from "essential" supermarkets but NOT takeaway).

It wouldn't be so bad to delay Formula One testing for one month. The moulds & autoclaves can wait, they are inanimate objects and don't need tending!

[Big Tea]

So it is worth while arrivals from South Africa or Brazil going to France or Nederland's and transferring to a short haul to UK?

Trying to subvert the rules is the exact opposite of what you should do! That's just not the approach to take when containing COVID19 is your number one priority as a visitor to the UK.

I know what you are supposed to do, but you can bet there will be many who will try anything to bypass it.

Even in Oz (Perth) a security guard at the isolation hotel caught the virus, which would be bad enough by its self, but he is also a spare time Uber driver. He felt ill, but still carried on as before.
As I said, you can make rules, but so many idiots will just say ' Ah, good idea, but it does not apply to me'

[Jolle]

So it is worth while arrivals from South Africa or Brazil going to France or Nederland's and transferring to a short haul to UK?

Trying to subvert the rules is the exact opposite of what you should do! That's just not the approach to take when containing COVID19 is your number one priority as a visitor to the UK.

I know what you are supposed to do, but you can bet there will be many who will try anything to bypass it.

Even in Oz (Perth) a security guard at the isolation hotel caught the virus, which would be bad enough by its self, but he is also a spare time Uber driver. He felt ill, but still carried on as before.
As I said, you can make rules, but so many idiots will just say ' Ah, good idea, but it does not apply to me'

One of the big downsides of freelancers and, in this case, uber drivers. No sick leave. and most uber driver don't do it for fun. If you can't drive... no food on the table.

[Big Tea]

Trying to subvert the rules is the exact opposite of what you should do! That's just not the approach to take when containing COVID19 is your number one priority as a visitor to the UK.

I know what you are supposed to do, but you can bet there will be many who will try anything to bypass it.

Even in Oz (Perth) a security guard at the isolation hotel caught the virus, which would be bad enough by its self, but he is also a spare time Uber driver. He felt ill, but still carried on as before.
As I said, you can make rules, but so many idiots will just say ' Ah, good idea, but it does not apply to me'

One of the big downsides of freelancers and, in this case, uber drivers. No sick leave. and most uber driver don't do it for fun. If you can't drive... no food on the table.

But now Covid is loose in Perth. This is the point I am making. If people either don't care, think the excuse is good enough, or the need is high enough, the rules are no barrier.

[Tommy Cookers]

the UK has a 12 week gap between prime and booster vaccinations
so adding 3 months to the government's proclaimed schedule
(more than 3 months if the EU withholds the UK's vaccine from the UK)

the public infectivity rate will rocket as the youngers won't be prevented from resuming normal behaviour

so the olders (when vaccinated) will still be at severe risk as the AZOx vaccine is ineffective in olders
(according to the German vaccine committee and to a M. Macron - neither wants the AZOx vaccine)

[JordanMugen]

so the olders (when vaccinated) will still be at severe risk as the AZOx vaccine is ineffective in olders
(according to the German vaccine committee and to a M. Macron - neither wants the AZOx vaccine)

One suspects there are many levels of politics afoot there. I am not sure their interpretation is accurate. Anyway, the good point is there are many effective vaccines available so it should be possible to vaccinate a great many people.

The original publications of AZOx vaccine results:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32623-4
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32661-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32466-1

[hUirEYExbN]

so the olders (when vaccinated) will still be at severe risk as the AZOx vaccine is ineffective in olders
(according to the German vaccine committee and to a M. Macron - neither wants the AZOx vaccine)

....
Anyway, the good point is there are many effective vaccines available so it should be possible to vaccinate a great many people.
....

My mother and sisters have been vaccinated using the Pfizer one. The UK isn't putting all it's vaccination policy on one vaccine, nobody is.

[Just_a_fan]

the UK has a 12 week gap between prime and booster vaccinations
so adding 3 months to the government's proclaimed schedule
(more than 3 months if the EU withholds the UK's vaccine from the UK)

the public infectivity rate will rocket as the youngers won't be prevented from resuming normal behaviour

so the olders (when vaccinated) will still be at severe risk as the AZOx vaccine is ineffective in olders
(according to the German vaccine committee and to a M. Macron - neither wants the AZOx vaccine)

The thing is not that infections are stopped but that the symptoms of an infection become minor enough that hospitalisation is a very rare requirement. All of the lockdowns and restrictions aren't to stop infections per se so much as to reduce the load on health services. If Covid had been 100% infectious and 0% fatal, no one would be worried about it and it would be allowed to run rife through the population just as the common cold does.

[Big Tea]

the UK has a 12 week gap between prime and booster vaccinations
so adding 3 months to the government's proclaimed schedule
(more than 3 months if the EU withholds the UK's vaccine from the UK)

the public infectivity rate will rocket as the youngers won't be prevented from resuming normal behaviour

so the olders (when vaccinated) will still be at severe risk as the AZOx vaccine is ineffective in olders
(according to the German vaccine committee and to a M. Macron - neither wants the AZOx vaccine)

The trial results were given in 3 age groups (something close to) under 20 - 20 to 55, - over 55. The results from all 3 group were pretty much identical, as were the numbers involved in the trial for that age group. It is all on ZOE and their own site

...demonstrated lower local and systemic reactions in older adults (≥56-69 years and ≥70 years) than younger adults (≥18-55 years) and generated similar robust immune responses against the SARS-CoV-2 virus across all adult age groups.


(link- https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centr ... roups.html)

(This is THEIR OWN SITE, so check it complies with other findings. I have, it does but best check your selves)

[nzjrs]

the UK has a 12 week gap between prime and booster vaccinations
so adding 3 months to the government's proclaimed schedule
(more than 3 months if the EU withholds the UK's vaccine from the UK)

the public infectivity rate will rocket as the youngers won't be prevented from resuming normal behaviour

so the olders (when vaccinated) will still be at severe risk as the AZOx vaccine is ineffective in olders
(according to the German vaccine committee and to a M. Macron - neither wants the AZOx vaccine)

The trial results were given in 3 age groups (something close to) under 20 - 20 to 55, - over 55. The results from all 3 group were pretty much identical, as were the numbers involved in the trial for that age group. It is all on ZOE and their own site

...demonstrated lower local and systemic reactions in older adults (≥56-69 years and ≥70 years) than younger adults (≥18-55 years) and generated similar robust immune responses against the SARS-CoV-2 virus across all adult age groups.


(link- https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centr ... roups.html)

(This is THEIR OWN SITE, so check it complies with other findings. I have, it does but best check your selves)

TC is not totally wrong here, and the German non-approval for the older age groups is very defensible.

You link to the AZ hompage which is a summary of the associated paper here - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 1/fulltext - which is primarly a study of the immune response for different dosage schemes.

This was followed by the full (interim) report on the clinical trial for specifically testing efficacy of the AZ vaccine, which is here https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 1/fulltext

Of note, the second paper - and the one that is more suited to use when speaking about efficacy - unfortunately manged to recruit in over 65s only 1 infection in the treatment group, and only 1 in the placebo group. It is a bit of the luck of the draw, but also they were too conservative in recruiting the older age groups. This is largely the reason the Germany has not approved it for this age group. This is just too few people (check the confidence intervals in the table below for the older age group!!)



This tweet thread is a discussion of the efficacy in older age groups



Now, it is probbably reasonable to extend the findings of the first immunological study to the actual vaccine trial in the older age group. But that's not something goverments want to do and I understand why.

IMO I'm very disappointed at how badly AZ seems to have screwed up this (note: I'm almost certain AZ subcontracted the trial running to a 3rd party, but still). First there was the dosage error, and now they were too conservative in recruiting enough people in the older age cohorts. It's a bit of a mess of their own making. The Moderna and Novavax trials were better run.

[Big Tea]

the UK has a 12 week gap between prime and booster vaccinations
so adding 3 months to the government's proclaimed schedule
(more than 3 months if the EU withholds the UK's vaccine from the UK)

the public infectivity rate will rocket as the youngers won't be prevented from resuming normal behaviour

so the olders (when vaccinated) will still be at severe risk as the AZOx vaccine is ineffective in olders
(according to the German vaccine committee and to a M. Macron - neither wants the AZOx vaccine)

The trial results were given in 3 age groups (something close to) under 20 - 20 to 55, - over 55. The results from all 3 group were pretty much identical, as were the numbers involved in the trial for that age group. It is all on ZOE and their own site

...demonstrated lower local and systemic reactions in older adults (≥56-69 years and ≥70 years) than younger adults (≥18-55 years) and generated similar robust immune responses against the SARS-CoV-2 virus across all adult age groups.


(link- https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centr ... roups.html)

(This is THEIR OWN SITE, so check it complies with other findings. I have, it does but best check your selves)

TC is not totally wrong here, and the German non-approval for the older age groups is very defensible.

You link to the AZ hompage which is a summary of the associated paper here - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 1/fulltext - which is primarly a study of the immune response for different dosage schemes.

This was followed by the full (interim) report on the clinical trial for specifically testing efficacy of the AZ vaccine, which is here https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 1/fulltext

Of note, the second paper - and the one that is more suited to use when speaking about efficacy - unfortunately manged to recruit in over 65s only 1 infection in the treatment group, and only 1 in the placebo group. It is a bit of the luck of the draw, but also they were too conservative in recruiting the older age groups. This is largely the reason the Germany has not approved it for this age group. This is just too few people (check the confidence intervals in the table below for the older age group!!)



This tweet thread is a discussion of the efficacy in older age groups



Now, it is probbably reasonable to extend the findings of the first immunological study to the actual vaccine trial in the older age group. But that's not something goverments want to do and I understand why.

IMO I'm very disappointed at how badly AZ seems to have screwed up this (note: I'm almost certain AZ subcontracted the trial running to a 3rd party, but still). First there was the dosage error, and now they were too conservative in recruiting enough people in the older age cohorts. It's a bit of a mess of their own making. The Moderna and Novavax trials were better run.

Certainly needs keeping an eye on. The rush to get it in use can partly be explained, but not excused.

The paper I recently read, after the announcement from Germany, I think it was said 32 and 44 people in the over 80 group but have searched and can not find it again, I have been trawling so many lately. I don't know how many 'doses' have been given in the UK but at least half of vaccinations have been in the older age group so we should have concrete data soon. Don't know how many of these is the OAZ though as in my area it seems to be the Phizer vaccine for most.

I was feeling quite good about it too, I am scheduled to have my 'jab' in the next 2 weeks


PS the Novavax study had 4000 people over 65 in the group. and was effective against South Africa and Brazil varients.
https://www.novavax.com/covid-19-corona ... te-updates

[Just_a_fan]

It's worth bearing in mind that many vaccines have remarkably low effectiveness in terms of the % protected. We're used to the likes of measles vaccines giving almost complete protection (c.99% depending on info source), but flu vaccines generally only give c.50% protection.

In terms of the UK's vaccine response to Covid, all of the vaccines are being procured and many of in enough doses to give everyone in the UK each vaccine. SO if one is found to be less effective, further catch-up vaccine programmes can be implemented. Even if one vaccine is 75% effective and another is 90%, because both are being used, the overall effect will be to bring about a population protection. And that's the aim. No one is claiming that we'll end up with smallpox-like results with it being eradicated. It's about reducing severe symptom numbers to a low enough level that the health system can cope whilst also being able to offer the normal everyday health services.

[nzjrs]

It's worth bearing in mind that many vaccines have remarkably low effectiveness in terms of the % protected.

...

It's about reducing severe symptom numbers to a low enough level that the health system can cope whilst also being able to offer the normal everyday health services.

That's true enough of course, but there are a couple of flies in the ointment, IMO, which means I think climbing out of the rather deep hole the UK (for example) is in right now will take time.

The IFR is so massivly different per age that the while what you say is true in aggregate wrt. efficacy through the population, what seems to be more valuable from a policy making and hospital utilisation perspective is the efficacy in elderly cohorts.

Onto that one somehow grafts the conventional heuristic is that if everyone is vaccinated enough, everyone is protected quite a bit because the virus can't move through the general population freely.

As you see many countries are (rightly so) vaccinating the more risky elderly cohorts first BUT - they are not drivers of infection population wide, because the most vulnerable are not interacting and spreading the virus as much, so their vaccination will not slow the spread in aggregate population. It will however, stop the elderly from getting infected/sick. So to square this circle here, efficacy in this cohort matters to hospital utilisation multiplicatively more because of the skewed IFR.

So I agree with you in principle that efficacy doesn't need to be super high here, but perversely in this current political/risk/epidemiological climate, it ends up IMO mattering quite a bit more than in 'normally would'.

I think a lot of people are waiting for the cases and new hospitalisations statistics for Israel in January to be completed (for example https://www.science.co.il/medical/coron ... on-age.php and others). There have been some rumours of it going well, but if it was going perfectly I think there would have been more people screaming the good news from the rooftops.

[Big Tea]

It's worth bearing in mind that many vaccines have remarkably low effectiveness in terms of the % protected. We're used to the likes of measles vaccines giving almost complete protection (c.99% depending on info source), but flu vaccines generally only give c.50% protection.

In terms of the UK's vaccine response to Covid, all of the vaccines are being procured and many of in enough doses to give everyone in the UK each vaccine. SO if one is found to be less effective, further catch-up vaccine programmes can be implemented. Even if one vaccine is 75% effective and another is 90%, because both are being used, the overall effect will be to bring about a population protection. And that's the aim. No one is claiming that we'll end up with smallpox-like results with it being eradicated. It's about reducing severe symptom numbers to a low enough level that the health system can cope whilst also being able to offer the normal everyday health services.

The push in UK is to give as many as possible the first 'jab'. Although the resistance (if I can use that word) does not increase much the % of those who do get the virus (after 20 days) and are ill enough to be hospitalised is very low.

With the second 'jab' the number of infections is drastically reduced. It is being seen, sensibly in my opinion, as more important to stop many becoming serious than making some 'immune' (to a higher degree)