Coronavirus (Non-Politics)

[Member]

I think it's highly likely that more women die of blood clots arising from the contraceptive pill each year than people have from blood clots "caused" by the AZ vaccination. Just posturing from the EU.

That's a bit misleading IMO. The contraceptive pill does cause clots, but at a much lower rate now than it used to. Also the clots that are typically a result of taking the pill generally present at DVTs in a limb, or a pulmonary embolism.

From my reading about the AZ/Oxford vaccine and thrombotic events, it seems like the concern has been a number of highly rare brain thromboses in particular (CVTs), coupled with thrombocytopenia (the opposite of clotting, where you don't have platelets and suffer microvascular bleeding). These are different to DVTs and so it's important not to compare apples to oranges here.*

It's also probably sensible to not make definitive statements about the safety of the vaccines. The data and trials point to them being highly safe, but the national regulators have paused roll-out due to safety events. Hopefully they'll confirm that the vaccines are safe and all countries will get rapid access to vaccines which are definitely showing good levels of efficacy and have brought the cases in the UK right down.

Finally, this isn't posturing from the EU. The EMA (Europe's medicines regulator) has consistently said that the vaccine is safe to be used. This is the regulators within member countries (and European countries outside of the EU) making the decision to halt roll-out and investigate. The EMA recommended AZ for all ages, but Germany's regulator chose to restrict the approval to under 65s. This, along with mixed messages from politicians and the media caused very poor uptake of the AZ vaccine, which they've then been trying to walk back.

*My hypothesis, having discussed this at work, is that these event could be caused by COVID-19 (both CVTs and thrombocytopenia are associated with COVID-19). So these may be individuals who have acquired COVID-19 at the same time as receiving their vaccine. I've seen it mentioned in some circles online. We'll have to see in the coming days.

 

[Sandbach Shrimper]

Only 110 deaths reported on Tuesday, normally the highest day. And yet we've still got to wait another two months before we're allowed to go into someone else's house or eat a meal inside. Why are people not angry about this?

 

[blueblueblue]

Only 110 deaths reported on Tuesday, normally the highest day. And yet we've still got to wait another two months before we're allowed to go into someone else's house or eat a meal inside. Why are people not angry about this?

Because it's the right thing to do.

If we let things slip now, we'll end up going back to square one.

Also 110 dearhs is 110 deaths too many.

 

[Ricey]

Only 110 deaths reported on Tuesday, normally the highest day. And yet we've still got to wait another two months before we're allowed to go into someone else's house or eat a meal inside. Why are people not angry about this?

Because we lifted the restrictions too early last time. Let’s do it slower this time and hopefully we won’t have to go back into another lockdown. I’d rather wait a bit longer than go through this **** again!

 

[Member]

Only 110 deaths reported on Tuesday, normally the highest day. And yet we've still got to wait another two months before we're allowed to go into someone else's house or eat a meal inside. Why are people not angry about this?

The schools haven't yet been back for 2 full weeks and the mortality data lags by about 3-4 weeks after a large change in the restrictions, so we need to sit tight for a little longer and ensure we continue to see the data improve even when restrictions have lifted. While the numbers have come right down, there are still areas where they're not going down particularly quickly, or where they've seemed to have plateaued. I really want to see the deaths over the next week or so fall to under 50. Then we'd be looking similar to how things were last summer. The current rate of decline in deaths seems to be slowing.

Official UK Coronavirus Dashboard

GOV.UK Coronavirus dashboard

coronavirus.data.gov.uk

 

[Sandbach Shrimper]

Because we lifted the restrictions too early last time. Let’s do it slower this time and hopefully we won’t have to go back into another lockdown. I’d rather wait a bit longer than go through this **** again!

But I thought lockdown was just about making sure the NHS isn't overwhelmed (which it isn't) and getting the numbers down to a manageable level?

I don't know where this narrative that we lifted too quickly last time has come from. The first lockdown lasted three and a half months, by which point deaths were in double figures. There was always going to be a second wave in the autumn/winter, viruses are seasonal. This 'zero COVID' idea is just bonkers. And why would we have to go back into lockdown again when we have a vaccine, which is clearly having an effect?

I think we could easily lift more restrictions now, but it won't happen for political reasons. Sorry - I know the P word is banned.

 

[jackj13]

People are literally talking like nearly half adult population haven't been vaccinated. A vaccine that has been proven to prevent the most vulnerable from going into hospital.

However I've had this discussion many times on here so I'll leave this one to Shrimpboy.

 

[Sandbach Shrimper]

Because it's the right thing to do.

If we let things slip now, we'll end up going back to square one.

Also 110 dearhs is 110 deaths too many.

Why would we, when the most vulnerable are protected? What are we waiting for - zero deaths? Yes it's too many but hundreds of people are also dying of other causes every day, and lockdown certainly isn't helping with that.

 

[Holy Joe]

Why would we, when the most vulnerable are protected? What are we waiting for - zero deaths? Yes it's too many but hundreds of people are also dying of other causes every day, and lockdown certainly isn't helping with that.

This discussion has been done in this thread in the last couple of weeks, take a peak at the thread and you'll see the arguments for and against - at the end of the day for every person that thinks it's too slow, there'll be someone that thinks it's too fast - and the majority somewhere in the middle.

 

[blueblueblue]

This discussion has been done in this thread in the last couple of weeks, take a peak at the thread and you'll see the arguments for and against - at the end of the day for every person that thinks it's too slow, there'll be someone that thinks it's too fast - and the majority somewhere in the middle.

I didn't want to be rude and say leave it to shrimpboy (I'm not saying you were either) but you're right, this conversation has been done to death. It is what it is, the Gov have set out the plan going forward and it's not going to change.

 

[Holy Joe]

I didn't want to be rude and say leave it to shrimpboy (I'm not saying you were either) but you're right, this conversation has been done to death. It is what it is, the Gov have set out the plan going forward and it's not going to change.

Whilst I'm ok with the current plan of loosen a little, wait and see, loosen a little etc, I'm not sure the plan won't change. U turns, changes etc seem to be a speciality. Plus I believe there are some legal challenges from pubs on-going which if succesful would change the plan.

Also I think some of the actions have been reactionary, lockdown 1 occurred after a fair number of population had already started wfh etc. Mobility data, that I saw yesterday, is increasing, people are already taking matters into their own hands. Wouldn't be surprised if policy follows.

 

[jackj13]

What gets me is this as well. We’re still at level 4, how? You don’t need to be a scientist to see that cases are not going up exponentially.

 

[southendkid]

What gets me is this as well. We’re still at level 4, how? You don’t need to be a scientist to see that cases are not going up exponentially.
View attachment 14783

"Or" is a very different word to "and". It says "transmission is high or rising exponentially", only one of the two conditions needs to be met to keep us at level 4.

Cases aren't rising exponentially but transmission is still high based on the criteria set here which says the weekly case rate needs to below 25 per 100k to drop us to level 3 (we're currently on 59.1):

UK COVID-19 alert level methodology: an overview

www.gov.uk

 

[jackj13]

"Or" is a very different word to "and". It says "transmission is high or rising exponentially", only one of the two conditions needs to be met to keep us at level 4.

Cases aren't rising exponentially but transmission is still high based on the criteria set here which says the weekly case rate needs to below 25 per 100k to drop us to level 3 (we're currently on 59.1):

UK COVID-19 alert level methodology: an overview

www.gov.uk

Thanks for the link, that's very helpful as I've never known where to find the actual criteria for the changing of the alert level.

Very interesting as the criteria you mentioned is the only part of the criteria we are not meeting so very close to that now.

 

[Member]

Is the n

What gets me is this as well. We’re still at level 4, how? You don’t need to be a scientist to see that cases are not going up exponentially.
View attachment 14783

Is the nandos scale even used any more? I thought it was replaced by the local tiers, and then with the latest roadmap/guidance?

EDIT: seem like it is, I've learned something new

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

People are literally talking like nearly half adult population haven't been vaccinated. A vaccine that has been proven to prevent the most vulnerable from going into hospital.

However I've had this discussion many times on here so I'll leave this one to Shrimpboy.

That's correct.Half of the UK adult population haven't been vaccinated yet.Appointments for the over 50's start from next week.

 

[jackj13]

Is the n

Is the nandos scale even used any more? I thought it was replaced by the local tiers, and then with the latest roadmap/guidance?

EDIT: seem like it is, I've learned something new

Have to admit I thought it had too but then saw it had been downgraded!

That's correct.Half of the UK adult population haven't been vaccinated yet.Appointments for the over 50's start from next week.

Over 50's are now being done in some areas this week. However in regards to your statement are you alluding to not lifting restrictions until the other half of the population in the least risk groups are vaccinated? Because if that's the case I couldn't disagree more.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Have to admit I thought it had too but then saw it had been downgraded!


Over 50's are now being done in some areas this week. However in regards to your statement are you alluding to not lifting restrictions until the other half of the population in the least risk groups are vaccinated? Because if that's the case I couldn't disagree more.

What I'm saying is that on C4 News last night something like 24 million 800,00+ people had received at least one vaccination.As far as I'm aware the UK population is rather greater than 50 million adults.

 

[jackj13]

What I'm saying is that on C4 News last night something like 24 million 800,00+ people had received at least one vaccination.As far as I'm aware the UK population is rather greater than 50 million adults.

That's why I said nearly. They're planning to have half done by the end of the week. ?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

That's why I said nearly. They're planning to have half done by the end of the week. ?

We can agree on that.