The Vaccine Thread

[darkwolf666]

Now the question for me is - do we think we might make it into the Amex for ANY of the current season?

The best guess scenario at the moment appears to be, if the vaccine(s) work as hoped, that some level of normality can be restored by April / May next year - with that leaving a month of the season to play I'm guess the answer is no, with the possible exception of Chelsea friendly style crowds.

If that is the case, for the sake of waiting, would it not be better to leave it until next season!

 

[Mellotron]

The best guess scenario at the moment appears to be, if the vaccine(s) work as hoped, that some level of normality can be restored by April / May next year - with that leaving a month of the season to play I'm guess the answer is no, with the possible exception of Chelsea friendly style crowds.

If that is the case, for the sake of waiting, would it not be better to leave it until next season!

It's worth remembering it may be that mass testing is also utilised, and we would hope that treatments would've continued to improve in efficacy and availability between now and April/May, so it's not just about the vaccine's effect alone.

I think it'll be a close one. I understand what you're saying. I just miss the place, and would love to be there this season.

I hope this also means we can see crowds in stadiums for Euro 2021. An international tournament REALLY wouldn't be the same without crowds.

 

[middletoenail]

I’m sure this will piss people off

But 60-75 year olds should be above 80 plus.

Why? Surely they're more at risk, no?

I'm assuming you're going down the angle of "they're on their way out anyway, so what's the point?"

 

[CHAPPERS]

A lot of 60-75 year olds are likely to be in work, is one argument you might use.

 

[middletoenail]

A lot of 60-75 year olds are likely to be in work, is one argument you might use.

I get what you're saying, but there's only X amount of vaccines to go around, and from a pure risk management perspective the elders are more at risk.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Why? Surely they're more at risk, no?

I'm assuming you're going down the angle of "they're on their way out anyway, so what's the point?"

Some 60 - 75 are still working

80 plus are more likely to be in homes/able to shelter still

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I get what you're saying, but there's only X amount of vaccines to go around, and from a pure risk management perspective the elders are more at risk.

Even more reason to give it to ages that are more at risk from being out and about

 

[blue-shifted]

So is this train of thought right? Feel free to put me right anywhere

In a post vaccine and lockdown world …..

Likely vaccine take up about 70% of population

Minus about 20% of population who are kids and won’t get it, (but may be less likely to transmit asymptomatically)

10%ish will have had it and probably immune in the short term

Vaccine is 90% efficacious

= roughly 55% are going to be immune.

R value of Covid without lockdowns is about 3.

If just over half of people are immune and the virus naturally transmits at R3, won’t this mean that the virus is still transmitting at R1.5, meaning we still wouldn’t be able to stop it spiralling out of control?

This ignores that a section of the population may have natural immunity on the one hand (no definite science on this from what I can gather)

It also ignores people from other counties where there are lower levels of vaccine take up coming in, on the other.

Please set me straight if i’ve misunderstood anything

 

[Chicken Run]

So is this train of thought right? Feel free to put me right anywhere

In a post vaccine and lockdown world …..

Likely vaccine take up about 70% of population

Minus about 20% of population who are kids and won’t get it, (but may be less likely to transmit asymptomatically)

10%ish will have had it and probably immune in the short term

Vaccine is 90% efficacious

= roughly 55% are going to be immune.

R value of Covid without lockdowns is about 3.

If just over half of people are immune and the virus naturally transmits at R3, won’t this mean that the virus is still transmitting at R1.5, meaning we still wouldn’t be able to stop it spiralling out of control?

This ignores that a section of the population may have natural immunity on the one hand (no definite science on this from what I can gather)

It also ignores people from other counties where there are lower levels of vaccine take up coming in, on the other.

Please set me straight if i’ve misunderstood anything

I might have got this wrong but if 55% are immune It won’t ever spiral out of control, that can only happen without a vaccine?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Poojah]

So is this train of thought right? Feel free to put me right anywhere

In a post vaccine and lockdown world …..

Likely vaccine take up about 70% of population

Minus about 20% of population who are kids and won’t get it, (but may be less likely to transmit asymptomatically)

10%ish will have had it and probably immune in the short term

Vaccine is 90% efficacious

= roughly 55% are going to be immune.

R value of Covid without lockdowns is about 3.

If just over half of people are immune and the virus naturally transmits at R3, won’t this mean that the virus is still transmitting at R1.5, meaning we still wouldn’t be able to stop it spiralling out of control?

This ignores that a section of the population may have natural immunity on the one hand (no definite science on this from what I can gather)

It also ignores people from other counties where there are lower levels of vaccine take up coming in, on the other.

Please set me straight if i’ve misunderstood anything

Had to go over this a couple of times to properly wrap my head round it, but I think having done so there are some fundamental flaws in your logic, which is not in any way meant as a criticism by the way, just my observation.

For the purposes of answering your question, let’s just stick with your assumptions in terms of the take up of the vaccine. So, we have a situation where 55% of the population is immune - I think this figure is pessimistic, which I’ll come to later, but let’s go with it.

What’s more important is who is not immune. As you point out, this will include a significant proportion of children (amongst whom the R seems to be lower for some reason anyway). You’d also imagine those less likely to take up the vaccine are those least likely to be adversely affected by the virus itself - ergo, young, healthy people. The virus could well spread amongst this population but it won’t greatly matter, because only a tiny, tiny proportion will be susceptible to its effects.

Of course, there will remain a small number of vaccinated people who remain vulnerable, but it’s unlikely to be enough to prevent us returning to some form of normality. That might sound like collateral damage, and it is, but it’s also a part of our ‘normal life’. We could reduce cancer deaths massively by banning smoking, banning alcohol, banning cured meat. But there’s a play-off between risk and reward, just as there is with road deaths. Limiting all cars to 20mph would cut practically all road deaths overnight, but would be economically disastrous. This is no different.

But anyway, here’s the kicker, here’s why I think vaccine skepticism will dissipate quite quickly and we’ll end up with a far higher proportion of adults being vaccinated than you predict. No Western government could survive mandating this vaccine. But they don’t have to. Foreign governments will do it for them. Citizens of foreign countries don’t vote in domestic governments, so while the demand exists, you can impose whatever rules you want.

Look at what happened to the housing market post-lockdown. We’re going to have a MASSIVE pent up demand to travel from young people (in fact people of all ages) who’ve spent way too much time in their living rooms this year. And the great news is this - want to go to Magaluf this summer, mate? No problem, fill yer boots, you can go. But you’ll need the vaccine first.

You raised the point yourself, but once we have a vaccine which is effective and relatively freely available, no country in its right mind is going to allow its population and economy to be compromised by unvaccinated travellers. Peer pressure is a powerful thing - no matter how much of a conspiracist nut job you are, when 8 of your mates are off to Aiya Napa for ten nights of debauchery and you can’t go, you might be inclined to change your mind quite quickly.

 

[Chicken Run]

Had to go over this a couple of times to properly wrap my head round it, but I think having done so there are some fundamental flaws in your logic, which is not in any way meant as a criticism by the way, just my observation.

For the purposes of answering your question, let’s just stick with your assumptions in terms of the take up of the vaccine. So, we have a situation where 55% of the population is immune - I think this figure is pessimistic, which I’ll come to later, but let’s go with it.

What’s more important is who is not immune. As you point out, this will include a significant proportion of children (amongst whom the R seems to be lower for some reason anyway). You’d also imagine those less likely to take up the vaccine are those least likely to be adversely affected by the virus itself - ergo, young, healthy people. The virus could well spread amongst this population but it won’t greatly matter, because only a tiny, tiny proportion will be susceptible to its effects.

Of course, there will remain a small number of vaccinated people who remain vulnerable, but it’s unlikely to be enough to prevent us returning to some form of normality. That might sound like collateral damage, and it is, but it’s also a part of our ‘normal life’. We could reduce cancer deaths massively by banning smoking, banning alcohol, banning cured meat. But there’s a play-off between risk and reward, just as there is with road deaths. Limiting all cars to 20mph would cut practically all road deaths overnight, but would be economically disastrous. This is no different.

But anyway, here’s the kicker, here’s why I think vaccine skepticism will dissipate quite quickly and we’ll end up with a far higher proportion of adults being vaccinated than you predict. No Western government could survive mandating this vaccine. But they don’t have to. Foreign governments will do it for them. Citizens of foreign countries don’t vote in domestic governments, so while the demand exists, you can impose whatever rules you want.

Look at what happened to the housing market post-lockdown. We’re going to have a MASSIVE pent up demand to travel from young people (in fact people of all ages) who’ve spent way too much time in their living rooms this year. And the great news is this - want to go to Magaluf this summer, mate? No problem, fill yer boots, you can go. But you’ll need the vaccine first.

You raised the point yourself, but once we have a vaccine which is effective and relatively freely available, no country in its right mind is going to allow its population and economy to be compromised by unvaccinated travellers. Peer pressure is a powerful thing - no matter how much of a conspiracist nut job you are, when 8 of your mates are off to Aiya Napa for ten nights of debauchery and you can’t go, you might be inclined to change your mind quite quickly.

Also I can’t believe 55% of the population are immune to flu and pre Covid we were able to function normally?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[blue-shifted]

Had to go over this a couple of times to properly wrap my head round it, but I think having done so there are some fundamental flaws in your logic, which is not in any way meant as a criticism by the way, just my observation.

For the purposes of answering your question, let’s just stick with your assumptions in terms of the take up of the vaccine. So, we have a situation where 55% of the population is immune - I think this figure is pessimistic, which I’ll come to later, but let’s go with it.

What’s more important is who is not immune. As you point out, this will include a significant proportion of children (amongst whom the R seems to be lower for some reason anyway). You’d also imagine those less likely to take up the vaccine are those least likely to be adversely affected by the virus itself - ergo, young, healthy people. The virus could well spread amongst this population but it won’t greatly matter, because only a tiny, tiny proportion will be susceptible to its effects.

Of course, there will remain a small number of vaccinated people who remain vulnerable, but it’s unlikely to be enough to prevent us returning to some form of normality. That might sound like collateral damage, and it is, but it’s also a part of our ‘normal life’. We could reduce cancer deaths massively by banning smoking, banning alcohol, banning cured meat. But there’s a play-off between risk and reward, just as there is with road deaths. Limiting all cars to 20mph would cut practically all road deaths overnight, but would be economically disastrous. This is no different.

But anyway, here’s the kicker, here’s why I think vaccine skepticism will dissipate quite quickly and we’ll end up with a far higher proportion of adults being vaccinated than you predict. No Western government could survive mandating this vaccine. But they don’t have to. Foreign governments will do it for them. Citizens of foreign countries don’t vote in domestic governments, so while the demand exists, you can impose whatever rules you want.

Look at what happened to the housing market post-lockdown. We’re going to have a MASSIVE pent up demand to travel from young people (in fact people of all ages) who’ve spent way too much time in their living rooms this year. And the great news is this - want to go to Magaluf this summer, mate? No problem, fill yer boots, you can go. But you’ll need the vaccine first.

You raised the point yourself, but once we have a vaccine which is effective and relatively freely available, no country in its right mind is going to allow its population and economy to be compromised by unvaccinated travellers. Peer pressure is a powerful thing - no matter how much of a conspiracist nut job you are, when 8 of your mates are off to Aiya Napa for ten nights of debauchery and you can’t go, you might be inclined to change your mind quite quickly.

Thanks Poojah.

I totally agree that vaccine take up is likely to be very good. Well above the figure I quoted of adults will want it and peer pressure might play a part amongst the young. (It will help further if the government gets it's messaging right).

The bit I'm still not clear on is, "if we have a disease with an non lockdown r of 3 in a population with little or no immunity, do you need to achieve an immunity of over 2/3 of population in non restricted world in order to get the R rate below 1"?

I know there are variables in there, eg we don't know the R is exactly 3, we don't know what impact testing will have etc. I'm just trying to get the basic principle in my mind.

 

[Machiavelli]

So is this train of thought right? Feel free to put me right anywhere

In a post vaccine and lockdown world …..

Likely vaccine take up about 70% of population

Minus about 20% of population who are kids and won’t get it, (but may be less likely to transmit asymptomatically)

10%ish will have had it and probably immune in the short term

Vaccine is 90% efficacious

= roughly 55% are going to be immune.

R value of Covid without lockdowns is about 3.

If just over half of people are immune and the virus naturally transmits at R3, won’t this mean that the virus is still transmitting at R1.5, meaning we still wouldn’t be able to stop it spiralling out of control?

This ignores that a section of the population may have natural immunity on the one hand (no definite science on this from what I can gather)

It also ignores people from other counties where there are lower levels of vaccine take up coming in, on the other.

Please set me straight if i’ve misunderstood anything

There are a few flaws in your premises there, and I'm not sure all the premises hang together either.
Most specifically, the R-rate is not 3 without lockdowns, it can and does go both below and above that.
Also, when herd immunity was mooted as an option in March, it was indicated it took about 60% to get to herd immunity, so your halving of the R-rate is way out.
The virus thrives by spreading between people who are close together, inside, etc. If only a small % of those are carrying it, and a large % are vaccinated against it, or can no longer contract it, its ability to spread is vastly diminished.

 

[Recidivist]

There are a few flaws in your premises there, and I'm not sure all the premises hang together either.
Most specifically, the R-rate is not 3 without lockdowns, it can and does go both below and above that.
Also, when herd immunity was mooted as an option in March, it was indicated it took about 60% to get to herd immunity, so your halving of the R-rate is way out.
The virus thrives by spreading between people who are close together, inside, etc. If only a small % of those are carrying it, and a large % are vaccinated against it, or can no longer contract it, its ability to spread is vastly diminished.

Think there’s one other flaw in this train of thought in that being vaccinated does not necessarily imply that you can’t be a carrier just that you’re unlikely to suffer its ill-effects, so the clear conclusion is that you’d better get vaccinated asap.

Anti-vaxxers (aka nutcases - at last I can agree with something Bojo has said!) feel free to rebut....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[A1X]

The simple solution is people who can have the vaccine but refuse to do so should continue to be locked down. The vaccine is the ticket out.

 

[Machiavelli]

Think there’s one other flaw in this train of thought in that being vaccinated does not necessarily imply that you can’t be a carrier just that you’re unlikely to suffer its ill-effects, so the clear conclusion is that you’d better get vaccinated asap.

Anti-vaxxers (aka nutcases - at last I can agree with something Bojo has said!) feel free to rebut....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In terms of the vaccines, of which we have one confirmed and several in the pipeline to follow probably in weeks, each different vaccine will have different levels of efficacy regarding issues such as: contracting the virus, ill-effects, transmission the virus, etc (or that's the case according to my limited understanding on the matter).
In terms of anti-vaxxers, completely agree, although it's easily dealt with by [MENTION=35904]A1X[/MENTION]'s solution, but I'd add is that the focus of attention is going to shift from anti-masks, to the stealing of the election, and then on to the vaccine. These aren't mutually exclusive of course, quite the opposite, they reinforce one another, but once the vaccine is there and ready, that will pre-occupy them predominantly and, unfortunately, there's a lot of 'them' (70% of Republican voters think the election was corrupt according to a survey and, as we've become painfully aware on NSC, there are plenty on here that are drinking from the same poisoned well).

 

[e77]

But anyway, here’s the kicker, here’s why I think vaccine skepticism will dissipate quite quickly and we’ll end up with a far higher proportion of adults being vaccinated than you predict. No Western government could survive mandating this vaccine. But they don’t have to. Foreign governments will do it for them. Citizens of foreign countries don’t vote in domestic governments, so while the demand exists, you can impose whatever rules you want.

Also throw in that while the government won't mandate it there is nothing to stop private businesses - such as football clubs and concert venues - having been vaccinated as a condition of entry.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....-vaccine-makers-in-big-stock-sale-11605139164

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

The simple solution is people who can have the vaccine but refuse to do so should continue to be locked down. The vaccine is the ticket out.

Majority of the people who are refusing will be well down the lost to receive it.

They will either be happier to take it after millions have taken it safely, or proven right !

I’m not sure it will be an issue

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

https://twitter.com/jamestodaromd/status/1327239513001881602?s=21

Hmm

I think the gov are going to wait for the Oxford update before progressing with this.