Coronavirus

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Maggy

I suspect that the way measles and other diseases are still with us is because of the cult of antivaccers.

Agreed! For diseases like measles, the 'R' value is so high (12-18 compared with 2-6 for COVID-19) that you need very high vaccination rates. As soon as that drops, boom, the disease comes back.

The UK lost its 'measles free' status last year

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

How does an "antivaccer" catch measles?

They don’t; their children do.

MMR is 99% effective, which means one in every 100 people is relying on herd immunity to be protected against measles and the others, because the vaccine didn’t protect them directly. If a further 10 people per 100 haven’t been vaccinated, then with an R rate as high as 12-18, measles will find its way to all of those who weren’t vaccinated and also those for whom the vaccine didn’t work, fairly easily.

[papa smurf]

Wales in LOCKDOWN: 'Stay home' order issued as shops to shut in COVID-19 circuit breaker

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/13...irus-latest-vn

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Chris

They don’t; their children do.

The scary thing is that I think we're now onto the second generation for the major 'anti-vax' movement, as it's been 22 years since the discredited paper on MMR was first published.

So we now have both adults and children at risk of catching and spreading diseases for which we have safe and effective vaccines.

If the same behaviour and views hold true for any Covid-19 vaccine or vaccines then I don't know how we get out of this successfully.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

The scary thing is that I think we're now onto the second generation for the major 'anti-vax' movement, as it's been 22 years since the discredited paper on MMR was first published.

So we now have both adults and children at risk of catching and spreading diseases for which we have safe and effective vaccines.

If the same behaviour and views hold true for any Covid-19 vaccine or vaccines then I don't know how we get out of this successfully.

we get out by getting on.

Not everybody needs to be vaccinated only at risk groups and the vulnerable. Only 15m are vaccinated against Flu, and for the vast, vast, vast, majority of the population the virus is no more dangerous.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Pierre

for the vast, vast, vast, majority of the population the virus is no more dangerous.

That's interesting, where are you getting that from? The ONS figures seem to refute that statement. See section 4 here - https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...nd31august2020

At any age, the mortality due to COVID is higher than influenza according to those numbers. Under 65s have a 4x higher risk of dying of COVID than influenza or pneumonia. The risk of course is low so 4x not much still isn't much

[Taf]

Tuberculosis vaccination stopped in the UK as case numbers were low. Now the numbers are rising in some areas.

[nomadking]

COVID-19 has a tendency to decimate the lungs, in a way "regular" flu doesn't.

Link

Dr Sahanic’s presentation is important because it is one of the first, comprehensive prospective follow-ups of these patients and shows the serious, long-term impact of COVID-19 on the lungs and heart. It is sobering to hear that more than half of the patients in this study showed damage to their lungs and hearts 12 weeks after hospital discharge, and that nearly 40% were still suffering from symptoms such as breathlessness. The good news, however, is that patients do improve and this surely will help the rehabilitation process, as discussed in the second presentation.

From June

People infected with the coronavirus may be left with permanent lung damage. Doctors are reporting growing numbers of people who still have breathlessness and coughing months after falling ill with covid-19, and whose chest scans show evidence of irreversible lung scarring.
The numbers of people affected aren’t yet known, but estimates are as high as one in five of those who needed intensive care treatment for covid-19. Permanent damage is sometimes seen after other kinds of chest infections that can cause similar lung inflammation to the coronavirus, such as flu and pneumonia.
“We have always seen this before – what’s different is the scale of this,” says James Chalmers, a chest physician and adviser to the British Lung Foundation. Previously, his clinic in Scotland would have seen post-infection scarring of the lungs just once or twice a year, he says. “Now we are seeing dozens of patients coming through.”

In a study in Italy, which was one of the first European countries to be hit by the coronavirus, doctors are scanning the lungs of people three months after they fell ill. Although the full results aren’t yet in, Paolo Spagnolo at the University Hospital of Padua estimates that 15 to 20 per cent of those treated in intensive care at his hospital for covid-19 have scarring. “We have to be prepared in the future to manage these patients.”

These cases tend to be "high risk", ie overweight and/or smokers, rather than the vulnerable category. That is a much bigger group to be shielded.

---------- Post added at 17:36 ---------- Previous post was at 17:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Taf

Tuberculosis vaccination stopped in the UK as case numbers were low. Now the numbers are rising in some areas.

Because it's brought in from overseas from populations that were never vaccinated.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

That's interesting, where are you getting that from? The ONS figures seem to refute that statement. See section 4 here - https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...nd31august2020

At any age, the mortality due to COVID is higher than influenza according to those numbers. Under 65s have a 4x higher risk of dying of COVID than influenza or pneumonia. The risk of course is low so 4x not much still isn't much

You've answered your own question. Looking at pure statistics can give a skewed view. 4x bugger all is still bugger all.

I read that report and I couldn't really work out what it saying. This other FoI statement from the ONS for 1 month only advises that 90% of victims had underlying pre-conditions.

Anyway, the point was, going back to the original issue was that the whole population will not need to be vaccinated only the vulnerable and at risk groups, same as for flu.

---------- Post added at 19:22 ---------- Previous post was at 18:24 ----------

Unfortunately, I think what we are seeing now is Leaders (Wales) trying to out do each other. Ooh look how good a leader I am going to shut the country down, when the number of people on ventilators hasn’t changed for, over 3 weeks it has fluctuated between 26 - 34.

Also what we’re going to see is even more over-dramatising Of the situation as the politicians and science experts try Not to look foolish for over-reacting.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Pierre

You've answered your own question. Looking at pure statistics can give a skewed view. 4x bugger all is still bugger all.

I read that report and I couldn't really work out what it saying. This other FoI statement from the ONS for 1 month only advises that 90% of victims had underlying pre-conditions.

Anyway, the point was, going back to the original issue was that the whole population will not need to be vaccinated only the vulnerable and at risk groups, same as for flu.

Ah, fair enough, if you get the Excel data linked in the report, this is the death rate of COVID vs. the 5 year average for influenza per 100,000

Under 65 3.6x
65-69 4.1x
70-74 3.8x
75-79 3.6x
80-84 3x
85+ 1.7x

I picked the 5 year average as 2020 is quite a mild influenza year. This does suggest that COVID is deadlier than flu.

'Bugger all' might be a bit of a stretch for under 65s. A death rate of 16.4 per 100,000 is 5093 deaths. That is 5093 individual tragedies.

I do agree with your point though - the most vulnerable should definitely be the first ones to get the vaccine alongside health and care workers to prevent spread the the vulnerable who have not yet had the vaccine or the vaccine didn't take.

Hopefully any vaccine will be effective. If the rates of acquired immunity are low, more people will need to vaccinated eventually to get a herd protection

[nomadking]

Any figures will be "skewed" by the lockdown and other precautions being taken. That will obviously have reduced any illness and mortality figures, compared to people carrying on as normal.
You just have to look at the number of instances from around the World, where gatherings have resulted in deaths, that in normal times would've just made them sick with regular flu.
If it was the same as regular flu, then it would've gone unnoticed and hospitals wouldn't be filling up fast.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Any figures will be "skewed" by the lockdown and other precautions being taken. That will obviously have reduced any illness and mortality figures, compared to people carrying on as normal.
You just have to look at the number of instances from around the World, where gatherings have resulted in deaths, that in normal times would've just made them sick with regular flu.
If it was the same as regular flu, then it would've gone unnoticed and hospitals wouldn't be filling up fast.

A round of applause from me for this one.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Ah, fair enough, if you get the Excel data linked in the report, this is the death rate of COVID vs. the 5 year average for influenza per 100,000

Under 65 3.6x
65-69 4.1x
70-74 3.8x
75-79 3.6x
80-84 3x
85+ 1.7x

I picked the 5 year average as 2020 is quite a mild influenza year. This does suggest that COVID is deadlier than flu.

'Bugger all' might be a bit of a stretch for under 65s. A death rate of 16.4 per 100,000 is 5093 deaths. That is 5093 individual tragedies.

I do agree with your point though - the most vulnerable should definitely be the first ones to get the vaccine alongside health and care workers to prevent spread the the vulnerable who have not yet had the vaccine or the vaccine didn't take.

Hopefully any vaccine will be effective. If the rates of acquired immunity are low, more people will need to vaccinated eventually to get a herd protection

Once you've had it we'll know won't we.

[1andrew1]

One for the next PMQs.

Matt Hancock seen in chauffeur-driven car without mask

Health Secretary Matt Hancock has been seen travelling in his chauffeur-driven car without wearing a mask, against the advice of No 10.

The public face fines of £200 if they fail to wear a covering in taxis or private hire cars.

There is an exemption for chauffeur-driven cars, but Downing Street said it had advised all its ministers to wear coverings.

A No 10 spokesman said there were masks available in all ministerial cars.

The picture was first published on the Daily Mirror website.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54605222

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

One for the next PMQs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54605222

Advice isn't law


There is an exemption for chauffeur-driven cars, but Downing Street said it had advised all its ministers to wear coverings.