Covid-19 Gambles

[JohnD]

This may sound a very silly question, but why is this in electrics?

to keep the plumbers away.

 

[JohnW2]

I know we all tend to look at graphs showing death rates etc…..but for me, long Covid is the biggest long term concern - and it’s often younger people.

Quite so - and it's something that a lot of these apparently 'vaccine hesitant' under-30s ought to be thinking about.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

At the end of this, on thread page 8854, we will see that this has all been necessary to show that over-current protective devices are there to protect the NHS.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "over-current protective devices", but I assume that it is related to "NPI scepticism".

If so, yes, as I've repeatedly said, NPIs aim primarily to 'protect the NHS'. However, I'm surprised that you do not see that as a crucial goal, since you have observed (very correctly) that we already have a massive problem of very large and lengthening waiting lists and delays in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer etc. (and countless other serious diseases, including mental health disorders), problems that are already going to impact on morbidity and mortality for many years to come, even if pressure on NHS resources did not increase (but they will).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

... and all of that gives plenty of oxygen for conspiracy theories.

It does, but I have far more important concerns on my mind than thinking about "conspiracy theories".

Were a government consisting of a different group of "fallible human beings", with a different party affiliation, in power, I have no doubt that there would be scope for 'conspiracy theories' in relation to them - such is the nature of 'conspiracy theories'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

At the end of this, on thread page 8854, we will see that this has all been necessary to show that over-current protective devices are there to protect the NHS.

Ah, got you.

 

[echoes]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "over-current protective devices...",

It was a joke. I'll get my coat.

 

[JohnW2]

It was a joke. I'll get my coat.

Well, I realised that much, given that it is an Electrics forum, but I was nevertheless wondering whether you were trying to make a serious point about the purpose and value of NPIs. Maybe not!

Kind Regards, John

 

[echoes]

Quite so - and it's something that a lot of these apparently 'vaccine hesitant' under-30s ought to be thinking about.

Kind Regards, John

Or maybe not.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.16.21257255v1

 

[JohnW2]

Quite so - and it's something that a lot of these apparently 'vaccine hesitant' under-30s ought to be thinking about.

Or maybe not. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.16.21257255v1

That relates to 12-16 year-olds, who (or whose parents) don't currently have the option to be 'vaccine hesitant' (and, unfortunately, maybe never will).

When I spoke of vaccine hesitancy, I was obviously talking about the 18-29 year-olds, who are the only "under-30s" currently being offered vaccination, and who apparently are proving to be fairly 'hesitant' (or maybe just lazy/uncaring/whatever!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I missed this:

Not really. Just a small proportion of that 4.4% of positive will be false positives (and that will be at least partially cancelled by false negatives). In any event, the rate of false positives and negatives will remain fairly constant over time, so will not affect changes in the figures, which is what we are looking at.

Are you sure that is how it works?


Is this a foolish question?

Had only half a million tests been carried out, would everyone be happier with only 25,000 'cases' yesterday (and today)?

 

[echoes]

That relates to 12-16 year-olds, who (or whose parents) don't currently have the option to be 'vaccine hesitant' (and, unfortunately, maybe never will).

When I spoke of vaccine hesitancy, I was obviously talking about the 18-29 year-olds, who are the only "under-30s" currently being offered vaccination, and who apparently are proving to be fairly 'hesitant' (or maybe just lazy/uncaring/whatever!).

Kind Regards, John

It was a response to a concern about 'long covid' in young people. That was a study of young people. That was the point.

Why do you think young people are not getting vaccinated in the numbers you clearly desire?

I can already tell that you think that under 18s should be vaccinated, and that you have cited "lazy/uncaring" as reasons why 18-29s might be 'hesitant', which is interesting since I've never heard this sort of rhetoric with regard to any other vaccination, or indeed any other medical treatment.

 

[JohnW2]

It was a response to a concern about 'long covid' in young people. That was a study of young people. That was the point.

Yes, I understood your point, but it was a speculative one. You cited a study in in 12-16 year olds presumably in an attempt to argue that 'long-Covid' was not something that 18-29s should worry about if deciding to decline Covid vaccination.

Why do you think young people are not getting vaccinated in the numbers you clearly desire?

You're guess is as good as mine, but I'm sure we can guess a good few of the reasons. Many probably think as you seem to suggesting they should, and not worrying much about 'long Covid', and hence perceive the benefit to them as being minimal, since their changes of severe illness or death if infected are very small - so it comes down to what they feel about (if they think about) the 'public health', rather than 'individual benefit' aspect of being vaccinated (or not). There are undoubtedly countless other reasons - some of which may not be any more definable than "because they think like youngsters" (who, of course, are 'invincible'!).

I can already tell that you think that under 18s should be vaccinated ...

In those 'public health' terms, I do.

What I (and I would imagine most of us) want is for the UK to achieve 'herd immunity', predominantly by vaccination. Since it is appreciably more transmissible, the HIT for the delta virus is a fair bit higher than it was for the original virus, quite probably 80% or more. If we don't even offer vaccination to about 20% of the population, then we clearly could not achieve a situation of 80% being fully vaccinated - so would have to wait, for an unknown (perhaps long) period of time until the total of immune people gets 'topped up' enough to reach the HIT by 'natural immunity' due to infection.

Kind Regards, John

 

[echoes]

I missed this:


Are you sure that is how it works?


Is this a foolish question?

Had only half a million tests been carried out, would everyone be happier with only 25,000 'cases' yesterday (and today)?

Until anyone can state with some reliability what the operational FP rate actually is, all bets are off.

On the absolute number of cases, we must know what the denominator is, or else that number is pretty meaningless. For context, the UK is conducting as many daily tests as the rest of Europe combined.

 

[JohnW2]

Are you sure that is how it works?

Sure of how what works? I'm sure that if X% of tests are positive, then a small proportion of that X% will be false positives (partially cancelled by the fact that should have been positives were 'false negatives'). I'm also sure that, if (as I think we can assume) the proportion of false positives and negatives remains roughly remains fairly constant from day to day, then inaccuracies in the data for those reasons will not seriously affect the pattern of changes over time.

Is this a foolish question? Had only half a million tests been carried out, would everyone be happier with only 25,000 'cases' yesterday (and today)?

You'd have to ask them if they were 'happier'. The assumption obviously is that the basis for having tests will remain fairly consistent from day to day. If one suddenly started doing a lot more tests 'at random', one would obviously pick up more cases of asymptomatic infection - and, similarly, if one reduced the number of tests one did (even in people who felt they should have a test), the number of 'positive cases' detected would obviously fall.

However, it is an issue. As I've said, I think it probably resulted in exaggeration of some of the 'regional increases' we saw in the UK. As soon as there was a hint of an increase (with people being tested 'for the usual reasons) we started undertaking many more ('random' testts in those areas aand so, not surprisingly found a lot more cases of (*mainly asymptomatic) positive tests.

Kind Regards, John

 

[echoes]

What I (and I would imagine most of us) want is for the UK to achieve 'herd immunity', predominantly by vaccination.

The UK (and everywhere else) will achieve herd immunity one way or another. Whether vaccination plays a significant part of this outcome is unknown, but with significant numbers of cases and hospitalizations among the vaccinated, it's looking like immunity via exposure is more reliable.

Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising, since the 'vaccines' were only evaluated against their ability to reduce symptoms. They were not shown to reduce infections or transmission, although we would expect some beneficial effect as a direct result of less severe symptoms, but how much is an open question.

On light of this, I can well understand why the young would eschew vaccination for this disease. It is of marginal (if any) benefit to them and comes with its own, as yet unquantified risks.