When will it all end?

drunkmonkey

Cases are irrelevant if they can prevent most hospitalizations, if that AstraZeneca inhaler works like the study it's a game charger along with vaccines. The papers still there waiting peer review. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-09-common-asthma-treatment-reduces-need-hospitalisation-covid-19-patients-study

Irish Stones

Le Bruise wrote: »

Not proven, but signs are good that the vaccines will in fact stop transmission to a fair degree.

Do you know when this things will be strongly proven and let known to the mass? When they have reached the target of 70-75% of vaccinated people and the herd immunity is achieved.

flashforward

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If Israel, for example, sees limited impact and cases start surging again regardless then that's very bad and leaves us in an appalling situation really.

If they see rapid decline and long term suppression then that is great news for the rest of us.

Which will it be?

Why do the case numbers matter? Its only the hospitalisations and ICU numbers that have any bearing on the impact?

Vaccine doesn't necessarily prevent you getting the virus - it lessons the effects. So people will still test positive and is it not fair to say that even when opening up with a fully vaccinated population the case numbers would still rise??

W123-80's

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

For F*CK'S sake, it's right there in the god damn article! For the bajillionth time! :mad:

I'm going to paraphrase the article in four very distinct sentences

Sentence #1, in which Leo tells us that we cannot have mass gatherings again until we achieve mass vaccination.

"I don’t see mass gatherings happening, I don’t see people filling stadiums and things like that, at least until we have 70 or 80 per cent of the population vaccinated and we know that it works in terms of reducing hospitalisations and deaths. Then we’re in a totally different space."

So far, I'm with Leo. This makes perfect sense and I certainly haven't been thinking about it any other way. 80% critical mass is the generally accepted yardstick so I'd even suggest he's being overly lax in floating 70% as an acceptable bar. So far, so good.

Sentence #2, in which Leo tells us that we're aiming for mass vaccination by September:

"And potentially outdoor gatherings of 10 to 15 people, maybe even 50 but nothing beyond that until we have a critical mass vaccinated of 70 to 80 per cent; we’re aiming for September for that."

Again, so far, so good. I'd still take issue with not sticking with 80% and instead introducing the possibility of only 70% being considered sufficient, playing with fire IMO. But generally speaking, in agreement.

So, to recap:

Sentence #1: No mass gatherings until mass vaccination.

Sentence #2: We're aiming for mass vaccination by September.

With me so far?

That brings us to:

Sentences #3 and #4, in which Leo tells us that we'll have restrictions at least until the end of the year, and that we'll be worried about another wave next winter and thus possibly have them well into next year as well:

Sentence #3: “There will be some form of restrictions at least until the end of the year if not well into next year,”

Sentence #4: "There is still a worry about next winter because it does seem there’s a seasonal element to this virus. People are indoors more and you’re 20 times more likely to get it indoors than out. So there will be a concern about a fourth wave of some sort next winter and there will be huge caution about allowing mass gatherings until we get through another winter."

Read these a few times. Do you not see how fundamentally contradictory these statements are? Jesus, this shouldn't be so difficult to get across. Either we do achieve mass vaccination by September or we carry restrictions forward into next year. The two are 100% mutually exclusive based on Leo's own words FFS - no mass gatherings until we have a critical mass vaccinated. So if sentence #2 is true, then sentences #3 and #4 make absolutely no sense whatsoever - UNLESS Leo is saying that the vaccine isn't good enough to allow us to end this nightmare. But in the same article, in sentence #1, he claimed that the vaccine was good enough to allow us to end this nightmare!

How anyone can read this interview and not come away confused at the very very least is utterly beyond me. The statements are fundamentally contradictory.

Sentence #1: No mass gatherings until mass vaccination.

Sentence #1, in which Leo tells us that we cannot have mass gatherings again until we achieve mass vaccination.

"I don’t see mass gatherings happening, I don’t see people filling stadiums and things like that, at least until we have 70 or 80 per cent of the population vaccinated and we know that it works in terms of reducing hospitalizations and deaths. Then we’re in a totally different space."

You have omitted to acknowledge the absolutely huge caveat in that sentence. I have highlighted it in bold above.

I don't think 'Leo is saying the vaccine isn't good enough to end this nightmare', I think he is simply trying to articulate the reality of the situation.

Until we know how effective the vaccination programme is we may be looking at some form of restrictions next winter.

I don't see that as very controversial.

Irish Stones

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Proven. Studies out there

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/covid-vaccine-pfizer-transmission-dose-b1807964.html

A single dose of Pfizer-BioNTech’s coronavirus vaccine cuts the number of asymptomatic infections and could significantly reduce the risk of transmission, a new UK study has found.

So, could vaccinated people get rid of the masks?
Imagine if they found that AZ or Moderna or other vaccines don't cut trasmission or don't cut it at the same level?
Wouldn't people fight to have Pfizer?

aido79

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

They have to go..

Who replaces them? The opposition who are in favour of even tougher restrictions?
Have a little think about things before making childish statements like that. At best you'll end up with a FF/SF coalition plus others which is the worst of both worlds.

flashforward

I seem to be missing the narrative here.

Can someone explain to me why when the 70+ and vulnerable people are vaccinated that there is any reason whatsoever to remain in any form of lockdown/restrictions?

The threat of a new variant should not be considered in response to the above question as if it is then we may aswel throw in the towel, hide in a corner and die slowly.

I accept people will die in doing the above. But this will be nothing to the impact of continuing with these draconian measures.

Irish Stones

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They have already told us we will likely need some restrictions through next winter.

Not about restrictions, but I heard Merckel saying we will go through annual vaccination seasons, that's why the vaccination centres will have to be permanent, rather than provisionally set up in parks, military barracks, gyms and so on.

aido79

flashforward wrote: »

I seem to be missing the narrative here.

Can someone explain to me why when the 70+ and vulnerable people are vaccinated that there is any reason whatsoever to remain in any form of lockdown/restrictions?

The threat of a new variant should not be considered in response to the above question as if it is then we may aswel throw in the towel, hide in a corner and die slowly.

I accept people will die in doing the above. But this will be nothing to the impact of continuing with these draconian measures.

I would imagine it is because they are erring on the side of caution. The virus and vaccine are still new so there is no long term evidence that the virus will protect people longterm or stop transmission although there is evidence emerging that this may be the case.
If the vaccine proves effective in other countries which are ahead of Ireland in the vaccine rollout out such as Israel, Denmark or the UK then obviously restrictions can be eased. The government seems to be taking a wait and see approach rather than just assuming that the vaccine is automatically going to be effective and just announcing dates for opening up.

Mr. Karate

Scotty # wrote: »

It doesn't work like that. The body has to build up a defence against the virus. It's not instant protection.

We'll be lucky to achieve 65%.

20% won't be offered it as they're under 18.
20-30% of remainder will refuse it.

That leaves 56-64% of population left to be vaccinated.

Vaccination efficacy ranges from 22% - 95% depending on brand and variant.

I really can't see us getting to herd immunity unless we have a huge campaign to convince those people who don't want it to take it OR... we introduce Vaccine Passports whereby people will not be allowed travel, attend gigs, sports, pubs without it.

Maybe they should stop undermining the process then. The Govt talking about lockdowns going on indefinitely, still needing masks and social distancing. Media constantly talking about variants, even hypothetical ones.

It makes anyone throw up their hands and say "Why even bother getting it then?"

Scotty #

Irish Stones wrote: »

Not about restrictions, but I heard Merckel saying we will go through annual vaccination seasons, that's why the vaccination centres will have to be permanent, rather than provisionally set up in parks, military barracks, gyms and so on.

Looking at some of the data, annual may be a bit ambitious. The first dose of pfizer and AZ starts to wear after 28-32 days. There isn't enough data yet to say how long the full vaccine lasts. There's also over 20 vaccines in final test stages now too so some of them may give better results.

But anyway, I think once we achieve herd immunity it will become like the flu vaccine whereby those who feel vulnerable will get it every year. Breakouts will appear from time to time and there'll be a glut of people running to get vacc'ed.


The usual caveat of 'depends on varients' applies.

Scotty #

Mr. Karate wrote: »

It makes anyone throw up their hands and say "Why even bother getting it then?"

I think the medical experts have warned all along that vaccines were not some kind of magic bullet. They're just another tool in the arsenal against the virus to be used in conjunction with masks, hand hygiene, etc. Not instead of...

Many people seem to have a hard time accepting that and some seem to be in total denial.

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

For F*CK'S sake, it's right there in the god damn article! For the bajillionth time! :mad:

I'm going to paraphrase the article in four very distinct sentences

Sentence #1, in which Leo tells us that we cannot have mass gatherings again until we achieve mass vaccination.

"I don’t see mass gatherings happening, I don’t see people filling stadiums and things like that, at least until we have 70 or 80 per cent of the population vaccinated and we know that it works in terms of reducing hospitalisations and deaths. Then we’re in a totally different space."

So far, I'm with Leo. This makes perfect sense and I certainly haven't been thinking about it any other way. 80% critical mass is the generally accepted yardstick so I'd even suggest he's being overly lax in floating 70% as an acceptable bar. So far, so good.

Sentence #2, in which Leo tells us that we're aiming for mass vaccination by September:

"And potentially outdoor gatherings of 10 to 15 people, maybe even 50 but nothing beyond that until we have a critical mass vaccinated of 70 to 80 per cent; we’re aiming for September for that."

Again, so far, so good. I'd still take issue with not sticking with 80% and instead introducing the possibility of only 70% being considered sufficient, playing with fire IMO. But generally speaking, in agreement.

So, to recap:

Sentence #1: No mass gatherings until mass vaccination.

Sentence #2: We're aiming for mass vaccination by September.

With me so far?

That brings us to:

Sentences #3 and #4, in which Leo tells us that we'll have restrictions at least until the end of the year, and that we'll be worried about another wave next winter and thus possibly have them well into next year as well:

Sentence #3: “There will be some form of restrictions at least until the end of the year if not well into next year,”

Sentence #4: "There is still a worry about next winter because it does seem there’s a seasonal element to this virus. People are indoors more and you’re 20 times more likely to get it indoors than out. So there will be a concern about a fourth wave of some sort next winter and there will be huge caution about allowing mass gatherings until we get through another winter."

Read these a few times. Do you not see how fundamentally contradictory these statements are? Jesus, this shouldn't be so difficult to get across. Either we do achieve mass vaccination by September or we carry restrictions forward into next year. The two are 100% mutually exclusive based on Leo's own words FFS - no mass gatherings until we have a critical mass vaccinated. So if sentence #2 is true, then sentences #3 and #4 make absolutely no sense whatsoever - UNLESS Leo is saying that the vaccine isn't good enough to allow us to end this nightmare. But in the same article, in sentence #1, he claimed that the vaccine was good enough to allow us to end this nightmare!

How anyone can read this interview and not come away confused at the very very least is utterly beyond me. The statements are fundamentally contradictory.

I'm with you that time because you did a good job of paraphrasing accurately. This time, you stuck pretty well to what Leo actually said. In just the last post you said "that we'd need another lockdown after achieving this, to avoid a fourth wave next Winter. Does. Not. Compute." But this time you stated it correctly and dropped the invented reference to Leo talking about how we need another lockdown". It's not the bajillianth time because you keep changing how you remember what he said.

But you got it right this time, so we can work with that.
"So if sentence #2 is true, then sentences #3 and #4 make absolutely no sense whatsoever". We both agree that sentence 2 most likely won't happen (It's true that the government is aiming for September, but they will almost certainly not achieve anywhere near 80% of total population. So hat should clear up points 3 and 4.

Have you considered the fact that the 70-80% immunity isn't guaranteed to mean a magical threshold beyond which we can simply reopen everything and have mass gatherings? The early models have said 70-80% will likely be the the threshold for herd immunity. What do you think happens if we reach 80% and have some herd immunity? I will be honest and say I don't know. Does that mean 75% confers no benefit and 80% confers the magical herd immunity, so we open all the stadiums and concerts the next day?

I think herd immunity has been talked about as a magic threshold, but it is likely much more of a sliding scale than that. But i don't pretend to understand it fully. Do you?

El_Duderino 09

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

How is it same research? I've linked you Israeli research.

Ive linked you UK Pfizer research.

Do you have difficulty accepting that vaccines reduce transmissions or you want to see with your own eyes before you believe it?

Ironic thing is none of the modelling studies were peer reviewed that got us into lockdown, I'd say you werent that evidence hungry back then though

2 studies that aren't peer reviewed are a bit better than one study that isn't per reviewed. But it's still not "proof" as claimed earlier. Do you at least accept that?

Why not just wait for them to be at least peer reviewed?

El_Duderino 09

Irish Stones wrote: »

Not about restrictions, but I heard Merckel saying we will go through annual vaccination seasons, that's why the vaccination centres will have to be permanent, rather than provisionally set up in parks, military barracks, gyms and so on.

If that's what's necessary then fair enough. One funeral at a time though. I doubt it'll be as much of a problem to vaccinate everyone annually once it can be staggered. The problem is that everyone in the world wants a vaccine yesterday (except anti-vaxxers but they're also a problem for another day).

Monster249

aido79 wrote: »

I would imagine it is because they are erring on the side of caution. The virus and vaccine are still new so there is no long term evidence that the virus will protect people longterm or stop transmission although there is evidence emerging that this may be the case.
If the vaccine proves effective in other countries which are ahead of Ireland in the vaccine rollout out such as Israel, Denmark or the UK then obviously restrictions can be eased. The government seems to be taking a wait and see approach rather than just assuming that the vaccine is automatically going to be effective and just announcing dates for opening up.

We can't afford to err on the side of caution, we've been locked down longer than any country in the EU and it hasn't worked.

We're bleeding money and non-Covid issues are worsening by the day. They need to open up everything as soon as they have all over 60s & vulnerable people vaccinated.

Ginger n Lemon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

2 studies that aren't peer reviewed are a bit better than one study that isn't per reviewed. But it's still not "proof" as claimed earlier. Do you at least accept that?

Why not just wait for them to be at least peer reviewed?

To do what? or what are we waiting for?

I say sky is blue. I dont want to wait around for a peer reviewed study to confirm that.

I also say covid vaccine reduces transmission dramatically.

I am fine with you believing me or waiting for peer reviewed studies.


PS I also say start opening the bloody country. Even Germany now is re opening hairdressers...

At this rate we ll be like bloody cave people of EU. :pac:

aido79

Monster249 wrote: »

We can't afford to err on the side of caution, we've been locked down longer than any country in the EU and it hasn't worked.

We're bleeding money and non-Covid issues are worsening by the day. They need to open up everything as soon as they have all over 60s & vulnerable people vaccinated.

What hasn't worked? Can you see that each time there has been a lockdown there has been a massive change in the deaths and hospitalisations after the lockdowns than prior to any of the lockdowns? Do you think the lockdowns have nothing to do with this change?

Who do you think gets the blame if vaccinating all the over 60's and vulnerable and then opening up doesn't protect the health system from collapse later in the year?
It's very easy to say open everything up but if you were a decision maker in all this would you still be willing to put your neck on the line and just open everything up and take a chance on it making things worse in the long run?

Bit cynical

aido79 wrote: »

It's very easy to say open everything up but if you were a decision maker in all this would you still be willing to put your neck on the line and just open everything up and take a chance on it making things worse in the long run?

Maybe it can't be left purely to the official decision makers.

aido79

Bit cynical wrote: »

Maybe it can't be left purely to the official decision makers.

So you'd prefer a turkeys voting for/against Xmas approach?

Bit cynical

Lockdowns do work in the short term.

Two problems with lockdown however:

1. Over time, people start finding ways around restrictions and so the efficacy of them is reduced. I think we are beginning to see this now in Ireland with a leveling off of numbers.

2. How do you exit from them without overreaction from the public causing numbers to shoot up?

They are a bit being addicted to opiate pain medication.

Ginger n Lemon

Bit cynical wrote: »

Lockdowns do work in the short term.

Two problems with lockdown however:

1. Over time, people start finding ways around restrictions and so the efficacy of them is reduced. I think we are beginning to see this now in Ireland with a leveling off of numbers.

2. How do you exit from them without overreaction from the public causing numbers to shoot up.

They are a bit being addicted to opiate pain medication.

3. You prevent people from doing what they like for many weeks, months in a row. When you allow them then to do what they like they ultimate end up overdoing it.


Lockdown only works if you dont come out of it. But even then people will find plenty of ways around it within weeks.

HansKroenke

aido79 wrote: »

What hasn't worked? Can you see that each time there has been a lockdown there has been a massive change in the deaths and hospitalisations after the lockdowns than prior to any of the lockdowns? Do you think the lockdowns have nothing to do with this change?

Who do you think gets the blame if vaccinating all the over 60's and vulnerable and then opening up doesn't protect the health system from collapse later in the year?
It's very easy to say open everything up but if you were a decision maker in all this would you still be willing to put your neck on the line and just open everything up and take a chance on it making things worse in the long run?

The sole purpose of lockdown is not to eradicate covid but to prevent the health service from being overwhelmed. This is the only goal in the fight against covid in Ireland and Europe. People will get infected, people will need treatment and people will die. Such is life and dealing with covid has been treated the same way in Ireland and Europe. In that context, the health service did not get overwhelmed so lockdown worked. Vaccines speed up the process to get to herd immunity.

Unfortunately lockdown has its limits as the vast majority of deaths happened despite having society in lockdown as they were caused by health staff going about their jobs as usual. Therefore, lockdown of society has its limitations and it must be accepted that people will get covid and die, it is just like how they could get other illnesses like the flu and die.

Vaccines are going to get us, rather soon, to a point where deaths and hospitalisations drop massively (98% just from vaccinating the over 60s and under 60s with chronic conditions). This is weeks to a few months, not months to years away. I don't understand what you are getting at, noting all of this, by saying that someone needs to put their neck on the line and risk making things worse by easing restrictions while all this is going on.

Easing all restrictions, knowing that there is strong data on efficacy of vaccines combined with significant rollout among elderly and vulnerable groups, is the only acceptable course of action and I would argue the person(s) arguing not to ease all restrictions in this context are risking doing far worse harm in the long run due to the severe, negative economic and social impact of restrictions.

landofthetree

The zero covid zealots are currently in a loose alliance with the EU shills.

The zero covid zealots are useful stooges for downplaying the good job that Israel,UK and even the USA have done with sourcing vaccines.

So any talk of it all ending with vaccines makes the EU look bad.

You will find lots of new accounts on boards.ie and social media sent out to shill for the zero covid zealots/EU in the last few weeks.

But once the EU finally get the vaccines rolled in big numbers out the zero covid zealots will be kicked to touch.

SheepsClothing

Bit cynical wrote: »

Lockdowns do work in the short term.

Two problems with lockdown however:

1. Over time, people start finding ways around restrictions and so the efficacy of them is reduced. I think we are beginning to see this now in Ireland with a leveling off of numbers.

2. How do you exit from them without overreaction from the public causing numbers to shoot up?

They are a bit being addicted to opiate pain medication.

Surely the answer is to gradually ween off the medication i.e. gradually lift restrictions over a period of time.

SheepsClothing

landofthetree wrote: »

The zero covid zealots are currently in a loose alliance with the EU shills.

The zero covid zealots are useful stooges for downplaying the good job that Israel,UK and even the USA have done with sourcing vaccines.

So any talk of it all ending with vaccines makes the EU look bad.

You will find lots of new accounts on boards.ie and social media sent out to shill for the zero covid/EU in the last few weeks.

But once the EU finally get the vaccines rolled in big numbers out the zero covid zealots will be kicked to touch.

And then the Klingon will inherit the earth.

Bit cynical

SheepsClothing wrote: »

Surely the answer is to gradually ween off the medication i.e. gradually lift restrictions over a period of time.

Yes that is it in a nutshell. However, as with any addiction, the hard thing is admitting there is a problem.

Once we get off the opiates, some pain will come back even if the original reason for the medication is gone.

Likewise with restrictions and lockdowns, even when various treatments and vaccines means there's no longer any danger whatsoever to the health services (the original reason), some deaths from (or more accurately with) covid will still remain. The problem is that these deaths are politically unacceptable and decision makers will feel under pressure to do something about it and the precedent has been set that things can be shut down without regard to people's rights and freedoms.

hatrickpatrick

W123-80's wrote: »

You have omitted to acknowledge the absolutely huge caveat in that sentence. I have highlighted it in bold above.

I don't think 'Leo is saying the vaccine isn't good enough to end this nightmare', I think he is simply trying to articulate the reality of the situation.

Until we know how effective the vaccination programme is we may be looking at some form of restrictions next winter.

I don't see that as very controversial.

If we achieve that mass vaccination by September we're going to know by Christmas whether it worked or not. The idea of restrictions "well into next year" makes absolutely no sense in that context.

landofthetree

SheepsClothing wrote: »

And then the Klingon will inherit the earth.

Dec 2020 join date.

Sort of proving my point.

El_Duderino 09

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

To do what? or what are we waiting for?

I say sky is blue. I dont want to wait around for a peer reviewed study to confirm that.

I also say covid vaccine reduces transmission dramatically.

I am fine with you believing me or waiting for peer reviewed studies.


PS I also say start opening the bloody country. Even Germany now is re opening hairdressers...

At this rate we ll be like bloody cave people of EU. :pac:

Ok. The colour of the sky isn't new information. The effect of Covid vaccination on covid transmission is brand new information and research neds to be peer reviewed.
Look, if you don't understand what peer review actually means, that's fine. Just take my word for it that, as yet we don't have "proof" of anything around covid vaccinations and transmissions. What we do have is early research that suggests some really good things re cutting transmission. But please, even if you don't understand why, take my word for it that we don't have "proof" - or consensus, yet