Coronavirus

[pauld]

If vaccinations aren't the way out of this after all, the government has to outline why, and what is the way out.

Vaccinations alone won't do it. At least not in the near-medium term, and possibly not at all, according to the guy who developed the programme that wiped out smallpox. We will also need an effective Track and Trace programme and proper support for people to self-isolate. We've pissed about for 10 months without managing either of those, although we have wasted a shitload of money in failing to do so. Until the govt gets it's head round the idea that this need a serious coordinated public health effort rather than just hunkering down and hoping a vaccine will be a silver bullet, we're a bit fucked. That's a TLDR of what the experts on How to Vaccinate the World have been saying, FWIW.

[Bogus Dave]

Why?

The problem is too many vulnerable people getting ill and clogging up the hospitals

Vaccinate everyone, those numbers drop rapidly. Yes, some will still get the disease but with hospitals much less overwhelmed and with treatments getting better it shouldn’t be viewed any different at all to the Flu - including an annual injection of the most vulnerable targeted at the most prevalent strain that year

COVID isn’t going to go away, and anyone who thinks so is daft. We’ll learn to live with it

[Panda Paws]

Why?

The problem is too many vulnerable people getting ill and clogging up the hospitals

Vaccinate everyone, those numbers drop rapidly. Yes, some will still get the disease but with hospitals much less overwhelmed and with treatments getting better it shouldn’t be viewed any different at all to the Flu - including an annual injection of the most vulnerable targeted at the most prevalent strain that year

COVID isn’t going to go away, and anyone who thinks so is daft. We’ll learn to live with it

This is what I think too. Are we missing something or being simplistic?

[Dr Pierre Chang]

The only thing you are missing chaps is a chance to have a ‘pop at the tories’ 

[RobertT]

Why?

The problem is too many vulnerable people getting ill and clogging up the hospitals

Vaccinate everyone, those numbers drop rapidly. Yes, some will still get the disease but with hospitals much less overwhelmed and with treatments getting better it shouldn’t be viewed any different at all to the Flu - including an annual injection of the most vulnerable targeted at the most prevalent strain that year

COVID isn’t going to go away, and anyone who thinks so is daft. We’ll learn to live with it

I think you are both saying the same thing but with different time horizons.

This is now endemic, it will be bloody tough to eradicate it - we have not got rid of the flu strain from 1918 (I believe).

In the long term, vaccinations will prevent death and gradually reduce spread and exposure.  An annual vaccination is likely, as you say.  In time, the strain itself should diminish in terms of mortality rate as well.

In the near term, to mid term, vaccinations will chip away, but it's going to be months before we can just decide to revert back to an as was state.

[Panda Paws]

In the near term, to mid term, vaccinations will chip away, but it's going to be months before we can just decide to revert back to an as was state.

I'm a reductive person, and I know that.

But this is the bit I don't get. If the vaccine stops old people from dying or putting pressure on the NHS, which it is proven to do, then what bit of the puzzle is missing when that course of vaccinations is complete?

[RobertT]

I'm a reductive person, and I know that.

But this is the bit I don't get. If the vaccine stops old people from dying or putting pressure on the NHS, which it is proven to do, then what bit of the puzzle is missing when that course of vaccinations is complete?

Permanency - if the virus is not completely eradicated, which is tough, it will continue to survive at low levels beyond immunity.

That's how I understand it - same with Flu, we have never gotten permanent immunisation from many of the strains that hit us in the 1900's and 2000;s.

[Panda Paws]

Permanency - if the virus is not completely eradicated, which is tough, it will continue to survive at low levels beyond immunity.

But that's fine. Lots of diseases and viruses exist. We're not aiming to eradicate?

[RobertT]

No - but that's 6-12 months away before we hit that "manageable" level.  Then it will just become something we live with and protect against in a normal fashion.  Until then, it's a race against time - which means sticking to our guns for a few more months yet.

It's also made more difficult because it's a global pandemic - we are relying on everyone else in the world reaching the same state, otherwise it will probably just keep bouncing up and down as immunisation levels drop.

[RobertT]

And I am working on the assumption, based on info released so far, that we are not getting lifetime immunity from teh vaccine.

[Panda Paws]

No - but that's 6-12 months away before we hit that "manageable" level.

I don't get this at all. Why is that point not the point in time vulnerable people proven to be at considerable risk are vaccinated and the vaccine has got to work on them. So worst case example, 12 weeks after Feb 15th of thereabouts. Best case example, Feb 15tb plus two weeks.

[pauld]

I'm a reductive person, and I know that.

But this is the bit I don't get. If the vaccine stops old people from dying or putting pressure on the NHS, which it is proven to do, then what bit of the puzzle is missing when that course of vaccinations is complete?

As Rob said, permanency. And also mutations, the longer we leave the virus running wild without seriously isolating it, the more opportunity it has to mutate into different forms. Which doesn't mean the vaccine can't be adapted to combat those mutations, I'm sure it will. But we're always playing catchup until we properly push down on infection, not just symptoms. Seriously, you really should listen to How to Vaccinate the World on this stuff.

[Panda Paws]

Seriously, you really should listen to How to Vaccinate the World on this stuff.

I've listened to it all. It's relatively helpful but a bit hit and miss on the interesting front.

At some point, do we not accept permanency? Eradication should not be the goal.

[pauld]

I've listened to it all. It's relatively helpful but a bit hit and miss on the interesting front.

At some point, do we not accept permanency? Eradication should not be the goal.

Probably. But it depends on whether it can be "lived with" or if it continues to flair up and mutate into ever more troublesome variants. The point being if we (and most of Western Europe) had adopted a serious isolate and contain strategy from the outset, or even over the summer, we'd be in a much better place. But we keep relying on single point of failure silver bullets to solve things and the experts seem to say that that ain't how public health containment works.

[RobertT]

I've listened to it all. It's relatively helpful but a bit hit and miss on the interesting front.

At some point, do we not accept permanency? Eradication should not be the goal.

If the vaccine does not provide lifetime immunity, then yes, we have to accept we find a way of dealing with it.  That way is to get the level of infection, globally, as close to zero as we can manage through vaccinations, and do so within the time limits of immunity.

That means many months yet - if you just vaccinate the vulnerable (to death) but leave it running rampant in the rest of the population you run the risk of it still being prevalent when their immunity subsides, wasting that initial effort.  You also expose the world to mutations, meaning even the vaccinated are at risk again.