Herd Immunity

exeterboro said:
I have become weary of claims like this, various experts last year claimed it would not come back in the winter and that the virus had mutated to have a negligible effect, looking back it seems like various non lockdown agendas were being promoted.
My doubts with this claim of herd immunity, are that the vaccinations have been concentrated in older age groups, people under 50 it still has to make a big dent in they are the ones likely to be having the most social contacts in the coming months. 79% of people who had the jab develop resistance to Cv19, that still leaves 21% possibly could get it out of the group's vaccinated. Just because people have tested for antibodies last month does not mean they will be around later, antbodies diminish overtime. I'm not sure where UCL is coming from on this but after last year I take any claim like this as just a theory.
Click to expand...
I know about 3/4 people who showed mild symptoms showed antibodies 10-12 months after illness
 
Randy said:
In one Whitehall meeting recently, there was serious discussion about new rules for hugging: should it be allowed outdoors, but not indoors? More worryingly, the taskforce setting the rules on international travel last week managed an entire strategy session without any serious discussion about the economic damage imposed by quarantines. In a country where over two million jobs depend on tourism, that’s quite an omission.


A discussion about allowing people to hug outdoors but not indoors? Do you get it yet? Behavioural scientists using the shrinking pandemic as a mass behavioural experiment.




From the Telegraph.



Boris Johnson was vaccinated against his own optimism by the third lockdown – and the protection seems to be long lasting. He grumbles that there’s only one real certainty about Covid: when things go wrong, Britain tends to get hit worst. That certainly was the experience of last year – but the surprise, now, is that things are going badly right. He is now facing the very real prospect that his “scientific cavalry” has not only arrived but is fairly close to winning the battle against coronavirus.

The vaccines have worked, better than anyone expected. More effective and more eagerly sought-after than any modeller dared to imagine. British Covid deaths are now the lowest in Europe, having fallen faster than even in Israel. There are no more “excess deaths” – in fact, fewer people are dying, now, than normal. The data has for some time, been unremittingly positive. Several parts of the country have been virtually Covid-free for several weeks.

The idea that we might achieve herd immunity on Monday – as a model from UCL suggests – is unexpected. But entirely plausible. We heard about herd immunity quite a lot at the start of the pandemic, because this is how viruses die. Infections keep rising until a certain percentage of the population is protected – either by recovery, or vaccination. The figure of 60 per cent was mentioned at first. Other estimates go as high as 85 per cent: as ever, with Covid, no one is quite sure. But whatever the threshold is, Britain looks likely to hit it soon.

Importantly, this is now Government policy: to achieve herd immunity by autumn through mass vaccination. The target may be reached earlier: a Bristol University model says August. Perhaps UCL is right and we will arrive at this promised land next week. After which there should – in theory – not be much need for restrictions. It ought to be impossible for Covid to overwhelm the health service again. It would be an incredible prize, one of the greatest scientific achievements of our times. It’s not just possible, but probable.

But the timing? No one can know for sure. This takes us back to the debate about vaccine passports, the future of lockdown and a summer of travel restrictions. The current thinking inside No 10 is that lockdown ends on 21 June, with herd immunity by September 30. So what regime should exist in between these dates? How likely is the virus to stage a summer revival? What bridging measures, if any, should be in place? This is the basis of the reviews into social distancing, travel bans and the rest.

It’s a perfectly sensible argument – but one not yet being made in public. In part, this is because “herd immunity” is seen as a politically toxic phrase. Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, used it once and was stunned to find himself accused of a secret plan to sacrifice the elderly. As he found out, social media helps hysteria spread faster than any virus. It was a brutal lesson in the new politics of pandemics: never mention the h-word.

Another reason to keep quiet about this is the still-huge element of doubt. If a new variant escapes the vaccine, or if recovery immunity is found to be short-lived, the whole herd immunity argument collapses.

Yet so far, the signs are encouraging. Pfizer claims to be 100 per cent effective in South Africa, home of the notorious variant, and the numbers of Covid reinfections worldwide are tiny. This gives ground for political optimism: herd immunity will (probably) arrive. Maybe not quite on Monday, but soon. And that ought to change everything.

This takes us back to the case for candour. Would it be so bad, now, to admit to a herd immunity strategy? There have been discussions in government about renaming it “community immunity” or “collective immunity”. It seems odd to be working towards a goal that can’t be properly explained.

But a lack of clarity causes problems, as we saw this week. The argument for young people being jabbed is to help achieve herd immunity, to protect others. But squeamishness about admitting this led to the bizarre situation where young people were told that vaccination is a matter of personal risk. One graph shown suggested that, given the low prevalence of the virus, the risk to under-30s from blood clots with AstraZeneca was almost the same as the risk from Covid. Both are very low risks, but it’s an unpersuasive message. As is dangling the threat of vaccine passports, as if to say: get the jab if you ever want to see the inside of a nightclub again.

A more direct – and honest message – may work better: get the jab to stop the spread. The statistician David Spiegelhalter puts it well. For younger people, he says, “being vaccinated is as much a contribution to the community and their relatives and the people around them”. The last year has shown young people making all kinds of sacrifices to fend off a virus that they know will barely affect them. It’s hard to argue that they would not respond to plain arguments now. Matt Hancock is toying with a new soundbite: “do your bit.” But it’s no substitute for a broader discussion.

Talking things through more openly may also improve the quality of decisions inside the Government. In one Whitehall meeting recently, there was serious discussion about new rules for hugging: should it be allowed outdoors, but not indoors? More worryingly, the taskforce setting the rules on international travel last week managed an entire strategy session without any serious discussion about the economic damage imposed by quarantines. In a country where over two million jobs depend on tourism, that’s quite an omission.

We saw something else in this week’s AstraZeneca debate: blood clots discussed calmly, as a balance of risk. To hear Dr Alison Astles urge people to “keep saving lives” by taking the vaccine, after her brother died of side effects, has been one of the most moving moments of the pandemic. It would be quite something if this sparks a change in tone – where ministers move beyond podium slogans and start a more direct, transparent discussion about what now lies ahead.
Click to expand...
A scientific experiment, surely you don’t believe that. To me it’s pretty obvious why hugging outdoors is less risky hugging indoors
 
GazC_MFC said:
A scientific experiment, surely you don’t believe that. To me it’s pretty obvious why hugging outdoors is less risky hugging indoors
Click to expand...
You are serious aren't you?

😂

Tell me exactly what the difference is between hugging someone indoors to outdoors when it comes to transmission of a virus? Do you hug somebody differently with a roof over your head?
 
Randy said:
You are serious aren't you?

😂

Tell me exactly what the difference is between hugging someone indoors to outdoors when it comes to transmission of a virus? Do you hug somebody differently with a roof over your head?
Click to expand...
Well you don’t just go inside to hug someone, your likely to be in company for a sustained period of time. Getting close indoors could increase the amount of particles you take in l, where outdoors a 20 second hug May mean you don’t catch it all

I mean you have considered that haven’t you, because you have common sense? You are showing a lack of critical thinking if you take the hugging in isolation
 
GazC_MFC said:
Well you don’t just go inside to hug someone, your likely to be in company for a sustained period of time. Getting close indoors could increase the amount of particles you take in l, where outdoors a 20 second hug May mean you don’t catch it all

I mean you have considered that haven’t you, because you have common sense? You are showing a lack of critical thinking if you take the hugging in isolation
Click to expand...


"Sorry Mum, I know you've been vaccinated twice and so have I, but you can't have a hug unless we are outside in the garden"
 
Ignoring for a minute whether hugging indoors increases the risk of transmission. What? I mean really we are going to allow legislation to dictate where we can hug.

I'm oot
 
Randy said:
Tell me exactly what the difference is between hugging someone indoors to outdoors when it comes to transmission of a virus? Do you hug somebody differently with a roof over your head?
Click to expand...

Considering people don't generally walk 20m up to someone, hold their breath, hug and then instantly walk 20m away before breathing again then the difference between indoors and outdoors could be massive. There's often time either side of the hug, which is the key.

Hugging won't transmit a virus, as the contact does not transmit it, it's through ingestion/ inhalation etc, so providing people aren't hugging then picking their nose or kissing then simple hand washing afterwards could help. So with hugging on it's own (indoors or outdoors) there would be no change in the contact risks, but it's what comes with it, the exposure, which is unavoidable, and where the problem lies.

Viral load, in the air intensifies indoors and with proximity, which are the factors to do with transmission. Outside this wind and mass abundance of air dilutes, dries and blows away much more of the virus, this would have a big impact over the timeframe before and after the hug. By making people hug outdoors, it effectively tries to force more of the exposure outdoors, it's sound in theory, and would reduce risk. People won't get it though, so they likely won't do it.
 
Andy_W said:
Considering people don't generally walk 20m up to someone, hold their breath, hug and then instantly walk 20m away before breathing again then the difference between indoors and outdoors could be massive. There's often time either side of the hug, which is the key.

Hugging won't transmit a virus, as the contact does not transmit it, it's through ingestion/ inhalation etc, so providing people aren't hugging then picking their nose or kissing then simple hand washing afterwards could help. So with hugging on it's own (indoors or outdoors) there would be no change in the contact risks, but it's what comes with it, the exposure, which is unavoidable, and where the problem lies.

Viral load, in the air intensifies indoors and with proximity, which are the factors to do with transmission. Outside this wind and mass abundance of air dilutes, dries and blows away much more of the virus, this would have a big impact over the timeframe before and after the hug. By making people hug outdoors, it effectively tries to force more of the exposure outdoors, it's sound in theory, and would reduce risk. People won't get it though, so they likely won't do it.
Click to expand...
Whilst true as far as it goes it misses the point that in a closed room the atmosphere gets loaded with the virus pretty quickly, assuming someone in the room is infected. In this scenario hugging or not may not make any difference at all.

I still find it fascinating that people are debating this and not just laughing
 
Laughing said:
Whilst true as far as it goes it misses the point that in a closed room the atmosphere gets loaded with the virus pretty quickly, assuming someone in the room is infected. In this scenario hugging or not may not make any difference at all.

I still find it fascinating that people are debating this and not just laughing
Click to expand...

Long winded explanations aswell instead of just saying "you know what that's stupid".

Bring on the aliens or the Russians, 🤣
 
Laughing said:
Whilst true as far as it goes it misses the point that in a closed room the atmosphere gets loaded with the virus pretty quickly, assuming someone in the room is infected. In this scenario hugging or not may not make any difference at all.

I still find it fascinating that people are debating this and not just laughing
Click to expand...
The idea is people would want to hug, albeit I can't see why that's necessary whilst there's still a risk (albeit low), but it would hopefully make them go outside and stay outside, rather than congregating indoors (which is the main problem).

People won't get it though, and think it's silly, but small things like this could stop unnecessary spreading, and that stops people dying.

Peoples lives are more important than peoples hugs.
 
Andy_W said:
The idea is people would want to hug, albeit I can't see why that's necessary whilst there's still a risk (albeit low), but it would hopefully make them go outside and stay outside, rather than congregating indoors (which is the main problem).

People won't get it though, and think it's silly, but small things like this could stop unnecessary spreading, and that stops people dying.

Peoples lives are more important than peoples hugs.
Click to expand...
Your assertion that peoples lives are more important than hugs. That isn't for you to say and smacks a bit of arrogance. As is your assertion that people won't get it. It's very likely that most people do get it, have access to the same information as you and come to a different conclusion.

Give people the facts to make their own decisions. I might be less sceptical of a government who were competent or even caring and incompetent. Johnson is neither.

The whole idea is nuts. A government legislating how and where you can hug. Eventually we will be allowed to kiss...No tongues though, that is step 3,012, 261 in our cautious but irreversible bleeding of the public purse, ermm I mean roadmap to freedom.
 
Laughing said:
Your assertion that peoples lives are more important than hugs. That isn't for you to say and smacks a bit of arrogance. As is your assertion that people won't get it. It's very likely that most people do get it, have access to the same information as you and come to a different conclusion.

Give people the facts to make their own decisions. I might be less sceptical of a government who were competent or even caring and incompetent. Johnson is neither.

The whole idea is nuts. A government legislating how and where you can hug. Eventually we will be allowed to kiss...No tongues though, that is step 3,012, 261 in our cautious but irreversible bleeding of the public purse, ermm I mean roadmap to freedom.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree with all of this, legislating (or even talking about legislating) where people can and can't hug is just absolutely bonkers.

For me vaccines are proving to reduce the risk of death and serious illness, once everybody has been offered a vaccination or is able to access one, from that point on you have to let people make their own decisions and manage their own attitude to risk.
 
Laughing said:
Your assertion that peoples lives are more important than hugs. That isn't for you to say and smacks a bit of arrogance. As is your assertion that people won't get it. It's very likely that most people do get it, have access to the same information as you and come to a different conclusion.

Give people the facts to make their own decisions. I might be less sceptical of a government who were competent or even caring and incompetent. Johnson is neither.

The whole idea is nuts. A government legislating how and where you can hug. Eventually we will be allowed to kiss...No tongues though, that is step 3,012, 261 in our cautious but irreversible bleeding of the public purse, ermm I mean roadmap to freedom.
Click to expand...
You're saying that someone having a hug is more than someone being alive? Weird.

People aren't skilled enough to make their own decisions about things they have zero clue about, so they should follow the guidance. Most of the time the guidance will have scientific backing, like it would here, as it would be less risk, effectively because it would be impossible to not be more risk.
 
Andy_W said:
You're saying that someone having a hug is more than someone being alive? Weird.

People aren't skilled enough to make their own decisions about things they have zero clue about, so they should follow the guidance. Most of the time the guidance will have scientific backing, like it would here, as it would be less risk, effectively because it would be impossible to not be more risk.
Click to expand...
No Andy, I am saying let each individual decide whether hugging a loved one is more important than the possibility of catching a virus, then the vaccine not having the desired effect.

Who am I to tell people how to live their lives.

Your last paragraph is just plain wrong. Give people the facts and let them decide for themselves. You're suggesting, if I read your post correctly, that you know, but the rest of us are not capable of understanding?

Add in the clusterfuck that was Johnsons response to the pandemic and why should I or anyone else care what the buffoon thinks about someone hugging their parents or grandkids. He has proven himself to be completely untrustworthy, so you will forgive me if I ignore the advice coming from him or one of his talking heads.

I'll say it again, why are you not laughing at this ridiculous suggestion, because that's all it is.
 
Laughing said:
No Andy, I am saying let each individual decide whether hugging a loved one is more important than the possibility of catching a virus, then the vaccine not having the desired effect.

Who am I to tell people how to live their lives.

Your last paragraph is just plain wrong. Give people the facts and let them decide for themselves. You're suggesting, if I read your post correctly, that you know, but the rest of us are not capable of understanding?

Add in the clusterfuck that was Johnsons response to the pandemic and why should I or anyone else care what the buffoon thinks about someone hugging their parents or grandkids. He has proven himself to be completely untrustworthy, so you will forgive me if I ignore the advice coming from him or one of his talking heads.

I'll say it again, why are you not laughing at this ridiculous suggestion, because that's all it is.
Click to expand...
It's not only their risk though, they might not kill their granny, but they might kill someone else's.

I'd never have a hug again if it meant some random person I've never met could get to keep a loved one for another 10 years or so.

I'm not saying any of us fully understand, so we should all follow the guidance of science, which hopefully is where all this is stemming from.

Hopefully, BoJo the clown has learned to stop listening to DC, hence why he got the boot, and has started to listen to science. Had we done that from the start, and even if people had been more cautious off their own backs then we wouldn't have half the deaths. People undermining, and taking on increased risks won't help.
 
Randy said:
Anybody waiting for permission off of a government to give their own mother a hug instead of using their own judgement is crazy.
Click to expand...
I would say "each to their own", but pandemics don't get limited to individual families, so instead I would say anyone valuing a hug over the risk of further case increases to them and others, going against guidance in a higher risk way is crazy.

Some people are too daft to make their own choices, and it's the daft ones that end up being super spreaders, which brings us all down. Look at the clowns that went to Cheltenham last year, or the mass of people that went out on the last night out before the pubs shut, etc etc. The reason we have so little cases now is down to people not doing what they hell they like.

Just leave the hugs for a couple more months until we're actually closer to herd immunity and all the older folk are done with their second jabs, and they've had a little time to get better coverage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top