[Camo]

I’m half surprised by that but probably shouldn’t be, there are a lot of big unhealthy people around. Thanks for looking it up, I should’ve done that. Makes it even more surprising so many seem in favour of lockdown but not in favour of promoting and incentivising a healthy lifestyle. Anecdotally I know someone who treats covid like the plague - a lifelong smoker who has had mouth cancer one, treated & recovered, yet continues to smoke. Fair to say I fear tobacco more than covid, but that is totally lost on him.

[petejh]

The unwinnable battle for a lot of people - short-term pleasure of eating/drinking/smoking versus the long-term pleasure of living a healthy active lifestyle. Or: most people on the planet don't care how good 8c feels compared to how tasty chicken mcnuggets are.

Short-term pleasures are less threatened by lockdown - you can still smash in chocolate and lager on the coach while watching tv. Travelling across Europe to enjoy living off rice and tuna while projecting 8c.. less achievable.

[mrjonathanr]

This was a rather detailed and unsettling read, for anyone interested in what evidence is in the public doman re  natural selection vs lab creation for the origin of SARSCoV2.

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/

[AJM]

Yeah, without an alternative and convincing "exit plan" I think peoples' ability to tolerate deaths from covid as a by-product of not having too many rules will increase significantly. Unless there's real risk of major impact to other NHS services due to overload I can't see how most people would buy into more restrictions.. I wouldn't.

Isnt the whole point that the modelling does suggest a risk of service overload still? I.e. by the time you take the older not-taken-up (either deliberately, or the people who have fallen through the cracks without the intent and are in the same position - we've got high coverage so far, but that's still 1:10 or something, right?), the people for whom the vaccine hasn't worked (1:10? 1:20?), and all the people of hasn't reached yet (most of whom should be low risk, save for those with vulnerability that hasn't been identified yet) there's still a pool large enough, especially if the variant is more transmissible and the herd immunity threshold therefore higher, to crash the system in the absence of any restrictions?

If we had finished vaccinating, this might be a different scenario - but we have obviously already committed to a "acceptable deaths" strategy, we aren't going for zero covid, so I think implicitly that conversation has already been had - I don't really recognise the viewpoint that says "you know, one day were going to have to have that discussion" - perhaps not in public it hasn't, but politically that's a done deal and that's the path we're heading down already

[joeisidle]

Yeah, without an alternative and convincing "exit plan" I think peoples' ability to tolerate deaths from covid as a by-product of not having too many rules will increase significantly. Unless there's real risk of major impact to other NHS services due to overload I can't see how most people would buy into more restrictions.. I wouldn't.

Isnt the whole point that the modelling does suggest a risk of service overload still? I.e. by the time you take the older not-taken-up (either deliberately, or the people who have fallen through the cracks without the intent and are in the same position - we've got high coverage so far, but that's still 1:10 or something, right?), the people for whom the vaccine hasn't worked (1:10? 1:20?), and all the people of hasn't reached yet (most of whom should be low risk, save for those with vulnerability that hasn't been identified yet) there's still a pool large enough, especially if the variant is more transmissible and the herd immunity threshold therefore higher, to crash the system in the absence of any restrictions?

If we had finished vaccinating, this might be a different scenario - but we have obviously already committed to a "acceptable deaths" strategy, we aren't going for zero covid, so I think implicitly that conversation has already been had - I don't really recognise the viewpoint that says "you know, one day were going to have to have that discussion" - perhaps not in public it hasn't, but politically that's a done deal and that's the path we're heading down already

Exactly this. A line seems to have been drawn by government long ago that as long as we don't completely collapse the ability of the NHS to function, the level of associated deaths are acceptable.

My issue is less with this decision outright, but more that we can't even seem to stick to these parameters when handling these waves. Latest SAGE consensus minutes appear to suggest that the NHS may well not function with our current roadmap combined with the new variant - particularly Step 4, but even Mondays measures could leave us with a similar peak to the one that shut down many hospital functions in January.

[Stabbsy]

70 deaths in last week due to COVID (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/)
~600 deaths per week due to obesity (https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-from-the-bhf/news-archive/2021/april/31000-heart-and-circulatory-deaths-obesity-each-year)

Not commenting on the underlying point, but isn’t this a bit of a meaningless comparison given the nature of Covid deaths and death trends? A long-term rate of obesity deaths driven by a long history of poor health in the UK, compared to the possible low point of a highly variable death rate that has all the benefits of having come out of a long period of restrictions. You could just as easily have chosen a week in January with >8,000 Covid deaths.

I’m not suggesting you’re trying to make a particular point with those numbers, just that they don’t add much/anything. The valid comparison in my mind would be to a long-term rate of Covid deaths with an acceptable level of restrictions in place.

[Oldmanmatt]

70 deaths in last week due to COVID (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/)
~600 deaths per week due to obesity (https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-from-the-bhf/news-archive/2021/april/31000-heart-and-circulatory-deaths-obesity-each-year)

Not commenting on the underlying point, but isn’t this a bit of a meaningless comparison given the nature of Covid deaths and death trends? A long-term rate of obesity deaths driven by a long history of poor health in the UK, compared to the possible low point of a highly variable death rate that has all the benefits of having come out of a long period of restrictions. You could just as easily have chosen a week in January with >8,000 Covid deaths.

I’m not suggesting you’re trying to make a particular point with those numbers, just that they don’t add much/anything. The valid comparison in my mind would be to a long-term rate of Covid deaths with an acceptable level of restrictions in place.

I just wonder about the logic of assuming 600 deaths per week from COVID on top of the 600 deaths per week from obesity and the many hundreds of deaths from other causes, doesn’t represent a massively overloaded system, given the strain the system was under prior to the pandemic and that it has been stretched to breaking point repeatedly for over a year.

We have “coped” because it came in waves. Had the situation in January persisted for a few weeks more, we would have seen the system begin to implode. Even if we could provide and sustain provision of physical resources to cope with sustained hospitalisations at those levels, we couldn’t hope to keep our Human Resources going without a break, physiologically or mentally.

I’m certain the Nightingales were always intended to become sanitariums and  death houses, should the need have arisen. 
The only thing that has prevented that, has been the lockdown.
Should the vaccines prove unable to arrest this pandemic, then we stand very little chance of preventing an overwhelming breakdown in public services.
As has been pointed out, our “death toll” is first, not really the point and secondly, artificially low, primarily due to spread mitigation and medical interventions. Should the system collapse, those medical interventions cease, many who would have survived, will not. The death demographic would shift significantly, since many seriously ill of younger age, also responded more significantly to treatments.

I think we’d be looking at some rather stiffer triage than some imagine. I wouldn’t think anyone over 50 should be contemplating this with anything other than gnawing fear.

[petejh]

Funny. But you aren't prohibited from getting on with living your life while probably not winning the lottery. While probably not dying from covid, you are.

(weird - that was a reply to Ru, whose post has disappeared)

[battery]

[quote/]

I think we’d be looking at some rather stiffer triage than some imagine. I wouldn’t think anyone over 50 should be contemplating this with anything other than gnawing fear.
[/quote]

A friend is an ICU nurse and this is one of the things that really broke her last year. Never before have they had to triage, they helped in any way they could, but they were having to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't.

[TobyD]

I'm certainly not trying to advocate for endless lockdowns, but it seems totally absurd today that all the health advisers, and many government ministers are advising people not to do any of the things that they're lifting restrictions on. It seems as though they're trying to absolve themselves of responsibility and acknowledging that they're not competent enough to cope while trying to keep business leaders happy. Meanwhile the majority of the population who don't really read or watch much if any news get on with packing out pubs and Ryanair flights to go and bring some more variants in. Self quarantine is a total fallacy, I don't seriously believe anyone does it properly. I just can't see it going well.

[Oldmanmatt]

I'm certainly not trying to advocate for endless lockdowns, but it seems totally absurd today that all the health advisers, and many government ministers are advising people not to do any of the things that they're lifting restrictions on. It seems as though they're trying to absolve themselves of responsibility and acknowledging that they're not competent enough to cope while trying to keep business leaders happy. Meanwhile the majority of the population who don't really read or watch much if any news get on with packing out pubs and Ryanair flights to go and bring some more variants in. Self quarantine is a total fallacy, I don't seriously believe anyone does it properly. I just can't see it going well.

It’s not going to.
Just like every other time, we will have to wait for the curve to become  obvious and admissions begin to rise.
Preventative measures, well ahead of requirements, are not something the public understands.
I don’t really blame the government, it’s not something they can possibly sell.
The talk, is to prepare us for what they’re almost certain they will have to do, a month from now.
If it starts to peak again, they will have to shut down again, it is just that bit too serious and leads to too many serious cases, across a just broad enough demographic, to be un-ignorable.
The only real hope is the vaccine program outpaces the surge.

[Paul B]

If anyone else is in Lancs (or S. Cumbria) the eligibility criteria for booking a vaccination has been temporarily lowered with three days of 'surge' vaccination available Tues-Thurs this week.

We're both booked for tomorrow.

[spidermonkey09]

I thought this was quite succinct in the NS newsletter this morning.

Good morning. Groups of up to six can meet inside and up to 30 outside in England, Wales and much of Scotland (Glasgow and Moray will remain under a degree of further restrictions to combat the greater number of cases there) as the United Kingdom heads towards the end of lockdown.

But two things are causing consternation in government: the first is the new, faster-spreading B.1.617.2 variant, the second is the small group of British people who may refuse to get the vaccine. (Those of us who have yet to be offered a vaccine may be entitled at this point to feel somewhat irate that the English government's thinking is already turning to how to deal with the recalcitrant, but that's a debate for another time.)

The plain facts are these: the evidence so far is that the B.1.617.2 variant responds well to vaccines, it just spreads faster. But it is a cause of particular anxiety for the government because of how long India - from where this variant springs - remained off the United Kingdom's red list. If B.1.617.2 does mean a delay to the great unlocking, that will be in no small part the government's fault, not least because 18 months on we are still no closer to having an effective approach on isolation, whether through central quarantine or sufficiently generous sick pay.

So you can see why it suits Downing Street to nudge the conversation away from that issue and towards the minority of vaccine-hesitant Brits. But again, there are some important facts to be aware of: the most vaccine-hesitant British person, regardless of class, race or religion, is more likely to be keen on getting vaccinated than the median person in most other countries. (For reasons that aren't fully clear, the British public is really keen on getting vaccinated: and thankfully, thus far, no amount of disinformation, whether it be spread by traditional media a la the MMR vaccine, by religious organisations as it has been in the case of HPV or on social media in the case of the coronavirus vaccines has yet to make a dent in that.)

So there is a choice to be made about whether to live in some form of perpetual on-again, off-again arrangement, because we are never going to have a 100 per cent vaccinated population at home or abroad. As the lockdown ends, the British government will need to have a grown-up conversation, both about its own shortcomings but equally importantly about the level of risk that we are willing to have in exchange for a return to normality.

[tommytwotone]

I thought this was quite succinct in the NS newsletter this morning.

...the British government will need to have a grown-up conversation, both about its own shortcomings...

I won't hold my breath.

[slab_happy]

If anyone else is in Lancs (or S. Cumbria) the eligibility criteria for booking a vaccination has been temporarily lowered with three days of 'surge' vaccination available Tues-Thurs this week.

We're both booked for tomorrow.

For anyone in Bolton who lives or works in BL3 or BL4, maybe go talk to the people at the Vaccination Bus, because it seems like they're getting as close as they can to saying out loud FUCK IT JUST GET DOWN HERE AND WE WILL FIND AN EXCUSE TO GET YOU VACCINATED:

https://twitter.com/DrWallBolton/status/1394041553354637321

Will be there until Sun May 23rd.

https://twitter.com/boltonnhsft/status/1394242735197114368

They've broken the UK record for most vaccines given in a single day at one site, apparently.

[mr chaz]

Similar experience in Shropshire for me, mass call out for anyone 18+ to come and get vaccinated at my local GP, had my Pfizer last week (age 28)

[slab_happy]

They're going to officially open up vaccinations to ages 18-39 in some areas of Glasgow:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19307759.coronavirus-glasgow-vaccines-targeting-18-39-hotspots/

Also, should apparently go to 35+ in all of the UK some time this week.

[slab_happy]

I'm obviously missing something here, so would someone mind explaining how we are set for another wave just as big as January. We're on to about 55% vaccination, much higher than that of elderly and vulnerable.

Are we just talking those who haven't had it/the few it doesn't work for/had it less than 3 weeks ago? That seems like a much smaller population to be getting ill and hospitalised

55% having had at least one dose, remember. One dose does provide pretty good protection against hospitalization and death (which is why prioritizing first doses is a solid policy) but it's still only partial protection relative to having both doses.

And if you have enough people exposed, then even a small percentage of breakthrough in fully vaccinated people and a small percentage of severe illness in younger, unvaccinated and half-vaccinated people is going to add up.

It's a numbers game: looks very likely B.1.617.2 is more transmissible than the Kent variant, but we don't yet know how much.

Folk have been feeding different transmissibility increases into their models, and depending on that figure and how you adjust other parameters, you get everything from "barely a ripple" to "oh shit that's not great".

https://twitter.com/JamesWard73/status/1393932001271554049 (example thread, concluding in a cautiously optimistic way that we've got tools to avoid the really bad outcomes but it might be a bit bumpy)

There's also the risk that the variant will make the vaccine less effective to some degree -- so far, antibody tests from various labs suggest that this shouldn't be the case, thank fuck, but we don't know for certain so people are a little bit twitchy.

[abarro81]

70 deaths in last week due to COVID (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/)
~600 deaths per week due to obesity (https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-from-the-bhf/news-archive/2021/april/31000-heart-and-circulatory-deaths-obesity-each-year)

Not commenting on the underlying point, but isn’t this a bit of a meaningless comparison given the nature of Covid deaths and death trends?

It depends on what you want to compare. I was just responding to

With covid we may hopefully get to a point where deaths are so low that it is comparable to deaths from things like smoking and obesity.

and found it interesting to benchmark where we are now and where we'd need to be (~85 deaths per day) for COVID and obesity to be killing a similar number. Obviously this was not true in Jan and is only a snapshot in time, but I took that as read/implicit.

[Paul B]

(the national vaccine booking system now seems to be open to the >=35yr olds, even though the front page doesn't yet reflect that).

[Oldmanmatt]

I’ve just had my second dose slot moved from 8 June to 22 May.
Didn’t request it, just got a text.

[TobyD]

I’ve just had my second dose slot moved from 8 June to 22 May.
Didn’t request it, just got a text.

Nice. If it's any reassurance, I had my second vaccine a couple of weeks ago, and had extremely low level of side effects compared to feeling pretty ropey after the first one.

[webbo]

I’ve just had my second dose slot moved from 8 June to 22 May.
Didn’t request it, just got a text.

Nice. If it's any reassurance, I had my second vaccine a couple of weeks ago, and had extremely low level of side effects compared to feeling pretty ropey after the first one.

I was just the opposite no side effects at all from the first one where as with the second one I felt like I’d got Dom’s for a week.

[battery]

I’ve just had my second dose slot moved from 8 June to 22 May.
Didn’t request it, just got a text.

Nice. If it's any reassurance, I had my second vaccine a couple of weeks ago, and had extremely low level of side effects compared to feeling pretty ropey after the first one.

I had Pfizer and felt shocking after the first one but only slight fuzzy after the second.

[slab_happy]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2021/may/17/uk-covid-live-boris-johnson-caution-britain-lifts-restrictions-coronavirus-latest-updates?page=with:block-60a288408f08e757a73578ce#block-60a288408f08e757a73578ce

DPH for Blackburn with Darwen also getting as close as possible to FUCK IT JUST GET DOWN HERE AND WE WILL FIND AN EXCUSE TO GET YOU VACCINATED:

"We’re urging everybody over 18 to book an appointment and have that discussion on a one-by-one level with clinicians who will be doing the vaccination, because of course they will be able to go through the eligibility process with each individual.

We have a strong expectation that a very high percentage of our population would meet at least one of those criteria, but of course they will be sticking strictly to the criteria supplied under the JCVI."

Also:

https://twitter.com/BBCLancashire/status/1394233464124317697
https://twitter.com/BWDDPH/status/1393923421994725378