Covid 19 - Lift all restrictions?

Alegrias1

Alegrias1

Why 60% is good. For those prepared to read it.

twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1396015144233222144

Quoting myself, sorry.

Why 60% isn't a bad thing.

(Unless you are Christina Pagel of course, who thinks we are doomed and might as well give up now.)

So that would be Professor Christina Pagel the German mathematician and professor of operational research at University College London, who holds a different opinion to you Alegrias1.

She flags up the need for two doses in order to have any reasonable protection from B.1.617.2. which, as she points out has rapidly spread in various parts of the country.

I imagine that it is because of this information that the government has shortened the gap between jabs. And it seems the councils in these areas are also aware of the issues with these vaccines and B.1.617.2. and are getting ahead of the government.

www.ft.com/content/a70d423a-7d7c-4736-8828-0a485d7c3a8e

I don't know about whether Prof Pagel has an agenda but I read her response to the 60% thing and I don't agree with it. No, I'm not an epidemiologist but then neither is Prof Pagel.

She is part of Independent Sage who have not exactly been triumphant in their forecasts so far; the January lockdown won't be enough to stem infections (it was). Opening the schools in March will cause a spike (it didn't). We should not go to a 12-week gap for vaccination (we did, it worked.)

Lots of use of the words "could", "likely", "scary" in her tweets.

Yes Pippa, the Prof Pagel who has a PhD in Physics, just like me.

The big thing about science is that we are allowed to have different opinions. That's how it works.

TBF, I don't have an MA in Medieval History.

Alegrias1

I don't know about whether Prof Pagel has an agenda but I read her response to the 60% thing and I don't agree with it. No, I'm not an epidemiologist but then neither is Prof Pagel.

She is part of Independent Sage who have not exactly been triumphant in their forecasts so far; the January lockdown won't be enough to stem infections (it was). Opening the schools in March will cause a spike (it didn't). We should not go to a 12-week gap for vaccination (we did, it worked.)

Lots of use of the words "could", "likely", "scary" in her tweets.

I don't think there is anything wrong with you not agreeing with it any more than there being nothing wrong with me choosing to read and quote someone whose field this is currently.

However, you were very quick to attack me earlier for what you termed my trying to diminish their opinion. I don't believe I was diminishing the value - which I presume is what you meant - of your opinion, but aren't you doing exactly that with your Unless you are Christina Pagel of course, who thinks we are doomed and might as well give up now. and your other deprecating remarks?

We're getting tied up in knots here PippaZ. IMO.

Prof Pagel has taken the negative view of the stats up until now, in that her perspective is that we need to have a lot more certainty about possible outcomes before we make any more decisions on easing. That is a valid view but is not constrained by real world decisions about keeping society moving. She has proposed we don't open up any further until everyone is vaccinated, which could be August or September.

As I have said before, Independent SAGE do not have to worry about the impact of their advice on the real world.

As for deprecating remarks, I refuted them when you made some about me (I didn't "attack" you - disagreeing and standing up for oneself is not "attack"). I didn't say we couldn't or shouldn't make them.

So, if independent SAGE don’t have to base their calculations on the economy doesn’t that mean that they are a more reliable source of information regarding our health ( and, ultimately, our life?).

Fair comment MayBee70. Only if we think that the only metric we should be using is the health one and we don't think we need a working economy in the future.

SAGE is made up of scientists as well, and one has to wonder why the scientists of Independent SAGE were not chosen to be on SAGE. One might think that its because they don't say the things the government want to hear, but that's pretty insulting to the scientists that are on SAGE.

Or, one could look at their track record and see whether what they have actually warned about has come true. 12 weeks over 3 weeks, for instance.

12 weeks over three was a gamble. Luckily it paid off. But usually, regarding health issues, gambles on that sort of scale aren’t taken, probably because of the worry of litigation. Eat out to help out was economy based and resulted in a rise in the infection rate I believe. Opening up Christmas for a week was economy based but thankfully sense prevailed.

I don't think 12 weeks over 3 was a "gamble"; it was a recommendation from MHRA based on knowledge of how vaccination works.

Alegrias1

We're getting tied up in knots here PippaZ. IMO.

Prof Pagel has taken the negative view of the stats up until now, in that her perspective is that we need to have a lot more certainty about possible outcomes before we make any more decisions on easing. That is a valid view but is not constrained by real world decisions about keeping society moving. She has proposed we don't open up any further until everyone is vaccinated, which could be August or September.

As I have said before, Independent SAGE do not have to worry about the impact of their advice on the real world.

As for deprecating remarks, I refuted them when you made some about me (I didn't "attack" you - disagreeing and standing up for oneself is not "attack"). I didn't say we couldn't or shouldn't make them.

You are right that she holds a valid opinion and I would say one based on having more factual knowledge in this area than you or I have at the moment.

She presents a premise based on her knowledge. It is what, with that knowledge, she believes to be right.

You ridicule her. You decide the balance of your thinking completely negates what she has to say.

Now, why would you do that? You could simply say you disagree and put forward the knowledge you base your opinion on.

(As far as I can see only one person is trying to confuse the views put forward, or tie the conversation in knots.)

Alegrias1

I don't think 12 weeks over 3 was a "gamble"; it was a recommendation from MHRA based on knowledge of how vaccination works.

One which they are now having to run hard to pull back.

MayBee according the University of Warwick eat out to help out could/might have caused between 8 - 17% of new cases.

OK, I disagree with her conclusions.

Why do I disagree with her? Because she mis quotes the "realistic possibility" definition.

Becuase she persists in the assertion that the variant is 50% more transmissible while other scientists, e,.g. Spector, have evidence to the contrary.

She quotes a SAGE document saying "it is possible that the outbreak in India is partly the result of higher transmission of B.1.617.2" It is also possible that it is not. Possibility is not proof, or even partial evidence.

Recourse to authority is not a thing in science. She clearly has more experience than me in modelling disease progression. But when there are statements and assertions that are not logically correct, I find it realistic to doubt the final conclusions. And IMO, she is being too pessimistic.

I'm afraid I totally disagree with your denigration of IndieSage. You seem to have forgotten that there were a number of very valid questions about the transparency of Sage, which is how IndependentSage came into being. Have you actually ever watched their videos or read what they actually say? I don't mean the second-hand media, which does its best to undermine what they say. Some of the IndieSage members are members (or have been) of Sage. They spend a long time on statistics and taking questions from the public. On the whole, they are fairly neutral, although they have criticised the government's stance on lack of support for those affected and are one of the few groups who have identified the way the virus has impacted on different communities - using data, not politics. For a scientist, I don't find your views very scientific. We need people to challenge the government's PR, which is almost entirely driven by keeping an eye on public opinion.

Do you have a link to Spector's evidence? How have either of them come to this conclusion?

PippaZ

Alegrias1

I don't think 12 weeks over 3 was a "gamble"; it was a recommendation from MHRA based on knowledge of how vaccination works.

One which they are now having to run hard to pull back.

38 million people have had at least one vaccination, 23 million have had both.

If we had gone with the 3 week gap, and with 61 million doses administered, approx 30 million people would have full protection. 8 million would have missed out completely on protection and would still be waiting for their first dose.

They're not pulling back, they're pulling ahead.

For a scientist, I don't find your views very scientific

Okey dokey

I have a lot of time for Stephen Reicher. I've found the others to be overly cautious or too quick to pursue their own agendas.

growstuff

Do you have a link to Spector's evidence? How have either of them come to this conclusion?

Sadly, I'm quoting the Telegraph

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/19/indian-variant-may-not-transmissible-scientists-say-cases-india/

Van Tam, Ferguson and (god help me ) Heneghan.

Spector at 3:20-ish.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZlNqMR0u9M

I would like to know why we are not running the vaccination centres round the clock or opening up more venues. We desperately need to get everyone who wants it vaccinated so that morally we can open up the country.
I suspect it may be because of shortages in vaccine supply but if there are supplies it is unethical to delay using it immediately.

Alegrias1

PippaZ

Alegrias1

I don't think 12 weeks over 3 was a "gamble"; it was a recommendation from MHRA based on knowledge of how vaccination works.

One which they are now having to run hard to pull back.

38 million people have had at least one vaccination, 23 million have had both.

If we had gone with the 3 week gap, and with 61 million doses administered, approx 30 million people would have full protection. 8 million would have missed out completely on protection and would still be waiting for their first dose.

They're not pulling back, they're pulling ahead.

By pulling back I think it is pretty clear that I meant pulling back on the gap between vaccinations. If it wasn't, I apologise and am now clarifying that.

The vaccination programme has been both effective and efficient but I put little of that down to the government. That is my bias but I am happy to own it.

I certainly agree with you PippaZ that the vaccine success is down to the scientists, the NHS and Kate Bingham.

Esspee

I would like to know why we are not running the vaccination centres round the clock or opening up more venues. We desperately need to get everyone who wants it vaccinated so that morally we can open up the country.
I suspect it may be because of shortages in vaccine supply but if there are supplies it is unethical to delay using it immediately.

Supply has been the bottleneck all along Esspee so I imagine that is still the case, as you say. Having said that I think we must all be impressed at the rate they are producing the vaccines.

We desperately need to get everyone who wants it vaccinated so that morally we can open up the country.

I couldn't agree more but that will not stop those coming in or even the small numbers of those coming back, who may be infected while away, bringing a new variant back until we get all countries vaccinated. This has to be high on our list if we want to be open not just in this country but worldwide.

The issue as I see it is that we have to adapt from Lockdown Strategy to Suppression Strategy. Some councils are doing well with the overall Test, Track, Trace and Isolate but the government has, in my opinion, singularly failed to bring this up to scratch. As far as I can see this is the only way we can, as you put it so well, morally open up the country.

To plan an exit strategy from Lockdown you actually have to plan it, not stick your finger in the wind, ring your buddies and hope for the best. Having a working strategy would allow a return to sustained, albeit somewhat reduced, economic activity.

It is beyond me why the government has not offered proper payment, for example, for those 'isolating' in the community. Trace should have been properly devolved as soon as they realised we must move forwards to a more open economy. However, it would be preferable not to do it with our eyes shut and our fingers crossed as we seem to have been doing with TTTI.

They have all opened here and working around the clock, it was rammed today in the centre we went and the one we were supposed to go but they all looked younger . My Mother said we must be at the threshold of hell sorry but I react badly to vaccines (and any medication tbh) But someone said upthread councils are reacting rather than central government to getting people in high infection areas jabbed

Official guidance has been updated to advise against all but essential travel in Bedford, Blackburn and Darwen, Bolton, Burnley, Kirklees, Leicester, Hounslow, and North Tyneside, where the Indian variant is growing fastest.

I don't understand why all the schools are still open, wouldn't it have made more sense to just close them this week and piggyback them onto the Whitsun break? I think I have already posted this. It obvious it is spreading within schools when you look at the gov map and affected areas and what schools they'd attend. I know it most probably wouldn't be clear to people who didn't live by one of these areas