Will Covid 19 impact 2022 season?

[nzjrs]

Is there any explanation on why they group together people age 0-64 in one single age group?

Why use a 64 year span for one group and a 10 year span for all other groups?

Can somebody explain what the reasoning is?

Couple of reasons;

If you are comparing the affect of vaccination in the UK - only the over 65s have been vaccinated in great numbers at the time of the analysis, and above 65 they were vaccinated in decreasing age cohorts as graphed. I think under 65 vaccinations only begin after end of Feb in large numbers in UK?

If you are having trouble interpreting these graphs, particularly the Israel dataset which is larger, the magnitude of the decrease is not the most interesting part - it is the phasing of the peaks and the relative difference in the rate of decrease, both of which track the phasing of the age cohorts vaccinated.

edit: BTW the upper tweet is the Israel scientist who has been doing the timeseries analysis - the lower tweet is the one he is replying to in general agreement.

[nzjrs]

Is there any explanation on why they group together people age 0-64 in one single age group?

Why use a 64 year span for one group and a 10 year span for all other groups?

Can somebody explain what the reasoning is?

Oh, just to make this clearer by the way. The upper tweet is the more interesting one

[aMessageToCharlie]

Is there any explanation on why they group together people age 0-64 in one single age group?

Why use a 64 year span for one group and a 10 year span for all other groups?

Can somebody explain what the reasoning is?

Couple of reasons;

If you are comparing the affect of vaccination in the UK - only the over 65s have been vaccinated in great numbers at the time of the analysis, and above 65 they were vaccinated in decreasing age cohorts as graphed. I think under 65 vaccinations only begin after end of Feb in large numbers in UK?

Thanks! Makes sense then.

[Just_a_fan]

Is there any explanation on why they group together people age 0-64 in one single age group?

Why use a 64 year span for one group and a 10 year span for all other groups?

Can somebody explain what the reasoning is?

Simple reason is that risk/deaths ramps up massively above the 60-70 age band. Below 60, the risk drops off like a cliff.

[Big Tea]

Is there any explanation on why they group together people age 0-64 in one single age group?

Why use a 64 year span for one group and a 10 year span for all other groups?

Can somebody explain what the reasoning is?

Simple reason is that risk/deaths ramps up massively above the 60-70 age band. Below 60, the risk drops off like a cliff.

Not just the deaths, the bed occupancy too. If they can get the volume of those hospitalised way down it will be controllable even if not curable.

[Just_a_fan]

Is there any explanation on why they group together people age 0-64 in one single age group?

Why use a 64 year span for one group and a 10 year span for all other groups?

Can somebody explain what the reasoning is?

Simple reason is that risk/deaths ramps up massively above the 60-70 age band. Below 60, the risk drops off like a cliff.

Not just the deaths, the bed occupancy too. If they can get the volume of those hospitalised way down it will be controllable even if not curable.

Sorry, that's what I meant by risks / deaths. Not clear on my part.

[aMessageToCharlie]

Is there any explanation on why they group together people age 0-64 in one single age group?

Why use a 64 year span for one group and a 10 year span for all other groups?

Can somebody explain what the reasoning is?

Simple reason is that risk/deaths ramps up massively above the 60-70 age band. Below 60, the risk drops off like a cliff.

Yeah, but the risk for 50-64 year old people is still 400 times that of 5-17 year olds, so it wouldn’t make sense to group them together from this pov.

I’ll stick with nznrs' explanation.

[Tommy Cookers]

now in the UK many are warning about illegal and legal relaxations of the ongoing 'lockdown' ....

that the high infection rate of the younger/invulnerables having already stopped falling in many areas ....
that infection rate will rise rapidly with relaxation

this will affect/kill some of the vaccinated - particularly those who have acted as if vaccination(s) made them immune
and increase variation/mutation within the virus eg the 484 thing that is already here and 'resistant' to our vaccine

looking forward ..... (now 75 days to my 2nd vaccination)

[Big Tea]

I seem to recall reading, and I cant find where so forgive me if it is slightly out, but after 40 years old your risk of death from covid doubles with every 7 years

[adrianjordan]

I seem to recall reading, and I cant find where so forgive me if it is slightly out, but after 40 years old your risk of death from covid doubles with every 7 years

That's accurate. Again I don't have any links to hand, but that's what the data shows.

[adrianjordan]

now in the UK many are warning about illegal and legal relaxations of the ongoing 'lockdown' ....

that the high infection rate of the younger/invulnerables having already stopped falling in many areas ....
that infection rate will rise rapidly with relaxation

this will affect/kill some of the vaccinated - particularly those who have acted as if vaccination(s) made them immune
and increase variation/mutation within the virus eg the 484 thing that is already here and 'resistant' to our vaccine

looking forward ..... (now 75 days to my 2nd vaccination)

Basically, the more people are infected, the higher the chance of a mutation. The more mutations, the higher the risk of a concerning mutation occurring.

So yeah, once rules start to be relaxed, we will see the drop in infection rates slow and possibly even an increase in infections. As long as hospitalisations and deaths don't start to rise too, I think that we'll carry on with easing of lockdown rules, though possibly slightly slower.

The real risk will come as international travel resumes though. We've already got the Brazilian variant here.

[Just_a_fan]

UK Govt. saying that there is a better than 80% reduction in hospitalisations after the first job. This is excellent news as it's the hospitalisations that are driving the lockdowns.

Hancock: 80% reduction in hospitalisations after first dose
Matt Hancock now turns to what he calls "exciting new data".

He says new evidence shows that a "single shot of either the Oxford vaccine or the Pfizer vaccine works against severe infection in over 70s with a more than 80% reduction in hospitalisations".

"The protection you get from catching Covid 35 days after a first jab is even slightly better for the Oxford jab than for Pfizer, albeit both results are very strong."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-5623 ... type=share

If we get these levels of result in other countries too then that will be a big step towards a non-lockdown season.

...<politics (well, policy) removed>...

[Big Tea]

UK Govt. saying that there is a better than 80% reduction in hospitalisations after the first job. This is excellent news as it's the hospitalisations that are driving the lockdowns.

Hancock: 80% reduction in hospitalisations after first dose
Matt Hancock now turns to what he calls "exciting new data".

He says new evidence shows that a "single shot of either the Oxford vaccine or the Pfizer vaccine works against severe infection in over 70s with a more than 80% reduction in hospitalisations".

"The protection you get from catching Covid 35 days after a first jab is even slightly better for the Oxford jab than for Pfizer, albeit both results are very strong."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-5623 ... type=share

If we get these levels of result in other countries too then that will be a big step towards a non-lockdown season.

...<politics (well, policy) removed>...

All good news, but what the government does not seem to be stressing, and it is very important, is that for the first two weeks there is almost NO protection. After 20 days it is quite good but full protection is 4 or even 5 weeks after the jab. The figures from Israel, which was the first country to go full scale show a large spike in the first 2 weeks after the roll out then a rapid drop off from there. I don't know if people were not informed, or if they just ignored it and went visiting anyway.

It is on the paperwork you get with the vax, but I never hear it stressed during the briefings, so it would seem to be down to the staff at the clinic. Where I was 'done' I was told, but as there was a lot going on it was easy to miss. I really think we are not paying enough attention to this.

[adrianjordan]

UK Govt. saying that there is a better than 80% reduction in hospitalisations after the first job. This is excellent news as it's the hospitalisations that are driving the lockdowns.

Hancock: 80% reduction in hospitalisations after first dose
Matt Hancock now turns to what he calls "exciting new data".

He says new evidence shows that a "single shot of either the Oxford vaccine or the Pfizer vaccine works against severe infection in over 70s with a more than 80% reduction in hospitalisations".

"The protection you get from catching Covid 35 days after a first jab is even slightly better for the Oxford jab than for Pfizer, albeit both results are very strong."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-5623 ... type=share

If we get these levels of result in other countries too then that will be a big step towards a non-lockdown season.

...<politics (well, policy) removed>...

All good news, but what the government does not seem to be stressing, and it is very important, is that for the first two weeks there is almost NO protection. After 20 days it is quite good but full protection is 4 or even 5 weeks after the jab. The figures from Israel, which was the first country to go full scale show a large spike in the first 2 weeks after the roll out then a rapid drop off from there. I don't know if people were not informed, or if they just ignored it and went visiting anyway.

It is on the paperwork you get with the vax, but I never hear it stressed during the briefings, so it would seem to be down to the staff at the clinic. Where I was 'done' I was told, but as there was a lot going on it was easy to miss. I really think we are not paying enough attention to this.

Well since we're still in a full Lockdown they shouldn't really need to worry anyway.

Not that people seem to actually be bothering with lockdown these days...

That's what will be more of a concern, people stop distancing, wearing face masks etc too soon and we see another spike.

That and the Brazilian varient or other possible mutations.

[Big Tea]

UK Govt. saying that there is a better than 80% reduction in hospitalisations after the first job. This is excellent news as it's the hospitalisations that are driving the lockdowns.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-5623 ... type=share

If we get these levels of result in other countries too then that will be a big step towards a non-lockdown season.

...<politics (well, policy) removed>...

All good news, but what the government does not seem to be stressing, and it is very important, is that for the first two weeks there is almost NO protection. After 20 days it is quite good but full protection is 4 or even 5 weeks after the jab. The figures from Israel, which was the first country to go full scale show a large spike in the first 2 weeks after the roll out then a rapid drop off from there. I don't know if people were not informed, or if they just ignored it and went visiting anyway.

It is on the paperwork you get with the vax, but I never hear it stressed during the briefings, so it would seem to be down to the staff at the clinic. Where I was 'done' I was told, but as there was a lot going on it was easy to miss. I really think we are not paying enough attention to this.

Well since we're still in a full Lockdown they shouldn't really need to worry anyway.

Not that people seem to actually be bothering with lockdown these days...

That's what will be more of a concern, people stop distancing, wearing face masks etc too soon and we see another spike.

That and the Brazilian varient or other possible mutations.

I am always grumbling when we take our exercise walk that we seem to be the only ones bothering with masks.
I know the 'rule' only indoors but we keep our masks around the neck and if we have to pass close to others just rise it up. No one else seems to bother and I find it slightly annoying. The mask is not for my protection, others masks are for my protection and it seems a one way thing. Not cool to be seen waring a mask etc.

We live in a costal town and know many by sight, most of those we pass are defiantly not 'locals', which is the bit that winds me up.