94% of English adults have Covid antibodies, ONS data shows(thetimes.co.uk)
thetimes.co.uk
94% of English adults have Covid antibodies, ONS data shows
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/658b3bc4-f518-11eb-8f01-2c678acbb979
140 comments
So UK is what living with covid19 will look like for those in highly vaccinated western countries?
Yes, but with better haircuts.
Wait… who has the bad haircuts? The UK or the rest?
Because as a rural-by-birth American who has travelled a bit, I’d say Berlin beats London or even urban USA in their awful haircut percentage by a wide margin. But nobody can top central Indiana, USA for sheer quantity of nasty-ass mullets with scraggly mustaches.
Because as a rural-by-birth American who has travelled a bit, I’d say Berlin beats London or even urban USA in their awful haircut percentage by a wide margin. But nobody can top central Indiana, USA for sheer quantity of nasty-ass mullets with scraggly mustaches.
The OP mentions England, not the whole of the UK
They do, but similar results are being seen in the other nations of the UK.
No paywall link: https://archive.is/IBmbl
This probably explains the previously mysterious drop in Delta cases in the UK.
In the U.S. why shouldn't we just shoot for herd immunity now? Not sure how effective restrictions and mandates will be in slowing things down and the costs to mental health and quality of life are so high.
In the U.S. why shouldn't we just shoot for herd immunity now? Not sure how effective restrictions and mandates will be in slowing things down and the costs to mental health and quality of life are so high.
I wouldn't say we are shooting for it, but it looks like we are heading that direction.
The US doesn't have a choice to shoot for herd immunity because the remaining willfully unvaccinated population is both anti-mask and anti-vax.
EDIT: Guess I worded that badly. What I mean is: choosing herd immunity is inevitable, so there is no choice. It will happen.
EDIT2: It didn't occur to me that there is a huge risk if more deadly mutations happen faster than herd immunity.
EDIT: Guess I worded that badly. What I mean is: choosing herd immunity is inevitable, so there is no choice. It will happen.
EDIT2: It didn't occur to me that there is a huge risk if more deadly mutations happen faster than herd immunity.
Herd immunity can also be achieved by the anti-vax people catching the virus. They can develop immunity by being sick instead of getting a shot.
Exactly. That's my point. It is unavoidable.
We can hope. Some people have already become ill from COVID more than once.[1] This is rare, but it happens. Immunity from vaccination seems to be stronger than immunity from having the disease, but it's too early to be sure. How long vaccine immunity lasts is an open question. So far, it's at least N months, where N is how long the vaccines have been in wide use. Beyond that is speculation.
[1] https://www.brgeneral.org/news-blog/2021/july/can-i-get-covi...
[1] https://www.brgeneral.org/news-blog/2021/july/can-i-get-covi...
> Immunity from vaccination seems to be stronger than immunity from having the disease, but it's too early to be sure
Unless anyone can cite peer-reviewed sources that indicate otherwise, there doesn't appear to be any conclusive evidence on this point. In fact these publications provide evidence that naturally acquired immunity is just as effective as vaccination [1][2] ([2] hasn't been peer-reviewed yet).
> How long vaccine immunity lasts is an open question. So far, it's at least N months, where N is how long the vaccines have been in wide use. Beyond that is speculation.
I'm interested in recent peer-reviewed literature supporting this point, and would be grateful if anyone could share links.
[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf
[2] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
Unless anyone can cite peer-reviewed sources that indicate otherwise, there doesn't appear to be any conclusive evidence on this point. In fact these publications provide evidence that naturally acquired immunity is just as effective as vaccination [1][2] ([2] hasn't been peer-reviewed yet).
> How long vaccine immunity lasts is an open question. So far, it's at least N months, where N is how long the vaccines have been in wide use. Beyond that is speculation.
I'm interested in recent peer-reviewed literature supporting this point, and would be grateful if anyone could share links.
[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf
[2] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
Along with an accompanying crush of ICU hospitalizations and deaths.
Why haven't we spent time bolstering healthcare then? Why have all the field hospitals been destroyed as fast as they were put up?
We don't have enough doctors and nurses to staff the ICU beds bolted to the floors of the hospital.
Those field hospitals are surge capacity; and work with hurricanes and earthquakes where a single part of the country is affected. You can bring in volunteers and reservists from other areas to create capacity.
When the emergency is everywhere, and on-going, all of your surge capacity is gone.
Those field hospitals are surge capacity; and work with hurricanes and earthquakes where a single part of the country is affected. You can bring in volunteers and reservists from other areas to create capacity.
When the emergency is everywhere, and on-going, all of your surge capacity is gone.
The emergency has been everywhere and ongoing for almost 2 years now. At what point do they make an effort and the government says "Hey, let's permanently bolster our hospital systems. We'll hire X amount of 'surge' staff, create X amount of 'surge' beds".
But we don't do that. Instead we act surprised every time there's a surge, the media feeds off it and everyone starts infighting. I'm not convinced hospital capacity is really the problem people say it is.
But we don't do that. Instead we act surprised every time there's a surge, the media feeds off it and everyone starts infighting. I'm not convinced hospital capacity is really the problem people say it is.
You need to train more doctors first. That’s the issue.
> Why have all the field hospitals been destroyed as fast as they were put up?
Take your pick from:
a) They were a bit of a PR gimmick? Better for gov't to be seen to do _something_ than standing around wringing your hands and hoping things will improve...?
b) They couldn't be staffed and equipped to provide appropriate and useful additional care?
c) General hospitals were perhaps not quite as close to being overwhelmed as was reported?
There were stories that German hospitals may have been slightly economical with the truth in terms of obtaining additional funding for ICU beds, which perhaps weren't needed or even ever created[0]
[0] https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/corona-hilfen-schummelei-1-3...
Take your pick from:
a) They were a bit of a PR gimmick? Better for gov't to be seen to do _something_ than standing around wringing your hands and hoping things will improve...?
b) They couldn't be staffed and equipped to provide appropriate and useful additional care?
c) General hospitals were perhaps not quite as close to being overwhelmed as was reported?
There were stories that German hospitals may have been slightly economical with the truth in terms of obtaining additional funding for ICU beds, which perhaps weren't needed or even ever created[0]
[0] https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/corona-hilfen-schummelei-1-3...
I think the argument is a fallacy in general. For people that keep making this argument: Stop beating around the bush and just come out and say you want zero covid at all costs.
[deleted]
IMO an even more important question is, why aren't we pursuing early outpatient treatment with combinations of existing over the counter medicines?
Such techniques have proven to be very effective at preventing hospitalization and death for SARS-CoV-2 [1][2], yet you will rarely find anyone advocating for them.
The papers I've cited are some of the most highly cited in the literature, with world-wide support from experts at top institutions who are actually treating COVID-19 patients.
These alternatives to vaccination are likely more palatable for the anti-vax crowd, and can help prevent over-utilization of precious medical resources.
[1] Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltex...
[2] Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) https://scholarlycommons.henryford.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
Such techniques have proven to be very effective at preventing hospitalization and death for SARS-CoV-2 [1][2], yet you will rarely find anyone advocating for them.
The papers I've cited are some of the most highly cited in the literature, with world-wide support from experts at top institutions who are actually treating COVID-19 patients.
These alternatives to vaccination are likely more palatable for the anti-vax crowd, and can help prevent over-utilization of precious medical resources.
[1] Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltex...
[2] Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) https://scholarlycommons.henryford.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
> why aren't we pursuing early outpatient treatment with combinations of existing over the counter medicines
Doesn't this come back (yet again) to the financial incentives?
Go to FDA.gov and read up on "Emergency Use Authorization"[0]:
> FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.
If it were to turn out that an existing (possibly cheap? maybe even a generic? ) over-the-counter medicine is a good treatment for C19 then that would undercut the business plans of Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and co.
Asking "cui bono" has never been more appropriate.
[0] https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-...
Doesn't this come back (yet again) to the financial incentives?
Go to FDA.gov and read up on "Emergency Use Authorization"[0]:
> FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.
If it were to turn out that an existing (possibly cheap? maybe even a generic? ) over-the-counter medicine is a good treatment for C19 then that would undercut the business plans of Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and co.
Asking "cui bono" has never been more appropriate.
[0] https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-...
You're making too much sense; someone is going to call you a conspiracy theorist.
Or catching the virus and being more or less asymptomatic.
You can reach herd immunity on any one strain - but as we've seen, the virus can mutate faster than we can reach herd immunity.
The arrival of delta (and the other four or five major strains) signal that that theory flat-out will not work, the virus is mutating faster than we are reaching herd immunity. By the time we actually reach full herd immunity, we will have strains that the vaccine only provides significantly diminished protection against - we are arguably already getting there with Delta.
The arrival of delta (and the other four or five major strains) signal that that theory flat-out will not work, the virus is mutating faster than we are reaching herd immunity. By the time we actually reach full herd immunity, we will have strains that the vaccine only provides significantly diminished protection against - we are arguably already getting there with Delta.
[deleted]
> because the remaining willfully unvaccinated population is both anti-mask and anti-vax.
That's not quite true. I know people who are not anti-vax, nor anti-mask, but they have an aversion to a new untested vaccine.
That's not quite true. I know people who are not anti-vax, nor anti-mask, but they have an aversion to a new untested vaccine.
Herd immunity (through vaccines) was always the goal, but I guess that's not what you mean?
The US is absolutely shooting for herd immunity now. Its just a question of how individual members of the herd want to achieve their immunity. They can take the easy way (vaccination) or the hard way (get Covid).
loceng(3)
Not really. Officially and unofficially they are pushing everyone to the vaccine. People who have antibodies are still getting fired from their jobs because they didn't take the vaccine. There's even talk of requiring the vaccine for some schools, regardless of prior infection status. So the US is not shooting for herd immunity through either means, but only through vaccination. Even federal employees are being required to attest to their vaccinated status without similar options for those with antibodies acquired by other means.
Pushing for near universal vaccination isn’t at odds with wanting herd immunity. Quite the opposite.
Pushing for near universal vaccination isn't at odds with wanting to maximize pharma profits. Quite the opposite.
Was it not the case that most of the vaccine producers were providing them at cost?
No. Not even close. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/vaccine-monopolies-m...
Pharma makes more money on average from covid infections in the US than vaccinations.
I'm saying that the parent's comment about pushing for herd immunity through both means is not exactly true. We are moving towards herd immunity by both methods unintentionally, but the only method being pushed is vaccination. So much so, that antibodies derived from infection are not even being counted, but rather those persons are being told they need the vaccine anyways.
It's a bit like measuring outputs rather than outcomes.
It's a bit like measuring outputs rather than outcomes.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Are you saying that we should be “pushing for herd immunity through both means” as in we should be pushing for vaccinations and pushing people to spread the disease as fast as possible?
I'm simply stating the claim that US is pushing for herd immunity through the choice of infection of vaccination is not true. That only vaccination is being pushed, and it is not exactly a free choice if you're going to lose your job or be denied service over it.
The vaccine results in more robust immunity.[1] That is an outcome.
[1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2103825?query=TOC
[1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2103825?query=TOC
What this shows is that a single dose administered to a previously infected person provides greater antibody production than a non infected person's recieving two doses. The study also says that they are unsure if those higher levels affect a patient's ability to get sick or transmit the virus.
What I would be looking for is a study showing that prior infection has x% effectiveness as measured against a vaccine on a similar timeline.
What I would be looking for is a study showing that prior infection has x% effectiveness as measured against a vaccine on a similar timeline.
I concur, thanks for helping folks stay informed.
GP's takeaway that "The vaccine results in more robust immunity" is completely unsupported by the provided source.
GP's takeaway that "The vaccine results in more robust immunity" is completely unsupported by the provided source.
> People who have antibodies are still getting fired from their jobs because they didn't take the vaccine.
Can you cite a source for this? I see people saying it, but I haven't seen actual cases.
Has anyone, to your knowledge, explained why they might pursue such an insane misapplication of basic principles of public health?
Can you cite a source for this? I see people saying it, but I haven't seen actual cases.
Has anyone, to your knowledge, explained why they might pursue such an insane misapplication of basic principles of public health?
I have a link to one below. My guess is corporate lawyers who want to limit liability without any understanding of the underlying issues.
Even my job has said that you have to be vaccinated to return (limited medical and religious exceptions). They also said it wouldn't make sense to keep the unvaccinated people working remotely, implying that they will fire people. They are not accepting antibody tests.
https://www.fox26houston.com/news/hospital-workers-prepare-t...
Even my job has said that you have to be vaccinated to return (limited medical and religious exceptions). They also said it wouldn't make sense to keep the unvaccinated people working remotely, implying that they will fire people. They are not accepting antibody tests.
https://www.fox26houston.com/news/hospital-workers-prepare-t...
It's unachievable in the US. Not enough people willing to get vaccinated. The bar for herd immunity is predicted at 80% or higher if covid keeps mutating to become more infectious. Measles had a 95% herd immunity threshold so who knows where covid could finally land.
Measles is one of the most infectious pathogens known to man with an R0 between 10 and 15. Even with the delta variant, COVID doesn't seem as transmissible so the threshold should be closer to 80 than 95.
The overwhelming majority of children in the US receive the MMR jab either due to public school pressure or immigration policy. It is unlikely that COVID vaccination will ever reach the same levels, despite sufficient abundance of vaccine supply to play vaccine diplomacy around the world.
Meanwhile we have Australia deploying the military to enforce acute lockdowns because they failed to secure enough vaccines early on.
Meanwhile we have Australia deploying the military to enforce acute lockdowns because they failed to secure enough vaccines early on.
They are talking about mandatory vaccinations for some schools.
Florida is threatening defunding schools that seek to require masks. Just masks. COVID vaccination has become a political expression of personal freedom.
I don't know, at the rate we're going it feels like they'll require 5 year olds to have the Covid vaccines to attend public school after finishing a five month, phase I trial in 3,000 kids.
The real answer is that schools probably should not open at all. They are basically ideal breeding grounds for the virus - kids are gross and spread everything to begin with, plus you have 30 kids sitting in close proximity, communal lunch-halls, crowded hallways, overcrowded bus transportation... and in higher grades you shuffle the contact groups an additional 7x per day as people change classes. It is literally the absolute ideal environment that you would design if you wanted to breed the disease - big groups, shuffled frequently, with no social distancing and kids who probably couldn't execute social distancing anyway.
The short answer is that schools probably should not be open at all. Even with the vaccine, you are talking about a disease that (even in mild cases) is known to cause subtle long-term damage to organs, it's really not a good idea to tempt fate in a growing kid, particularly with the potential for multiple recurring infections over time from different strains.
If you did want to re-open schools safely, you would have to require vaccinations, you would also have to restructure significant parts of the school "experience" - like having classes and bus transportation be significantly smaller and more spaced out, having class groups stay fixed and having teachers move between class groups rather than vice versa, etc. And all of that would be far more expensive - we would need more teachers, more classrooms, more busses, etc.
The reality is we're just throwing kids under the bus to die, because it would be expensive and inconvenient to do it right, and we can't not reopen schools because a lot of people depend on it as daycare and because a lot of people have decided we're "back to normal" regardless of what happens with future variants. Just like people have decided that we're done with masks and they're not putting them back on ever again, regardless of what the CDC says.
Open for business baby.
The short answer is that schools probably should not be open at all. Even with the vaccine, you are talking about a disease that (even in mild cases) is known to cause subtle long-term damage to organs, it's really not a good idea to tempt fate in a growing kid, particularly with the potential for multiple recurring infections over time from different strains.
If you did want to re-open schools safely, you would have to require vaccinations, you would also have to restructure significant parts of the school "experience" - like having classes and bus transportation be significantly smaller and more spaced out, having class groups stay fixed and having teachers move between class groups rather than vice versa, etc. And all of that would be far more expensive - we would need more teachers, more classrooms, more busses, etc.
The reality is we're just throwing kids under the bus to die, because it would be expensive and inconvenient to do it right, and we can't not reopen schools because a lot of people depend on it as daycare and because a lot of people have decided we're "back to normal" regardless of what happens with future variants. Just like people have decided that we're done with masks and they're not putting them back on ever again, regardless of what the CDC says.
Open for business baby.
> The reality is we're just throwing kids under the bus to die
What the hell are you talking about? The CDC has said children are at less risk of death from Covid-19 than they are from influenza. Were we "throwing them under the bus to die" when we opened schools in every year before 2020 without masks and "stay apart from your biohazard friends" social distancing?
Also, "Study shows schools do not spread Covid": https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/75136706-f171-11eb-8f01-2...
> we can't not reopen schools because a lot of people depend on it as daycare and because a lot of people have decided we're "back to normal" regardless of what happens with future variants
No, it's because an education is a fundamental human right which is being denied to children, and the policy of closing schools has caused immense damage to their learning and mental health for practically zero benefit in reducing the harm caused by the virus.
What the hell are you talking about? The CDC has said children are at less risk of death from Covid-19 than they are from influenza. Were we "throwing them under the bus to die" when we opened schools in every year before 2020 without masks and "stay apart from your biohazard friends" social distancing?
Also, "Study shows schools do not spread Covid": https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/75136706-f171-11eb-8f01-2...
> we can't not reopen schools because a lot of people depend on it as daycare and because a lot of people have decided we're "back to normal" regardless of what happens with future variants
No, it's because an education is a fundamental human right which is being denied to children, and the policy of closing schools has caused immense damage to their learning and mental health for practically zero benefit in reducing the harm caused by the virus.
Schools are no different from any other mass gathering - if you practice social distancing, it's relatively safe. On the other hand, various states are already hard at work banning schools from even requiring masks, and schools simply are not built for social distancing, and a mass return to school while maintaining social distancing would require substantial expansions of school buildings, buses, staff, etc. We don't want to spend that money so we are just going to give up on the social distancing instead.
Where people mask up, and when the area has low covid levels, students don't spread that much. Once the area takes off, the schools do indeed spread. (Which is kind of an obvious statement when you think about it, like of course kids don't magically have COVID when nobody else does, but also that they can spread it once an area starts getting a significant infection rate.)
I don't think going back to school in a state that has banned schools from masking up, during the surge of delta variant we're currently undergoing, is particularly safe at all, no.
> No, it's because an education is a fundamental human right which is being denied to children, and the policy of closing schools has caused immense damage to their learning and mental health for practically zero benefit in reducing the harm caused by the virus.
It's great that you have such strongly-held values! Then you won't mind spending the money to expand schools appropriately so a safe environment can be maintained, since the education of children is such a critical social outcome.
Like, I remember my high school and 25 kids was a small class, and hell no we weren't 6 feet apart. Explain to me how we get 2500 people 6 feet away from each other in a building that was designed to serve 2000 students that are 2 feet away from each other. That's the question that has to be answered to reopen safely.
Once schools are reopen en-masse, instead of just a limited basis (that allows spacing), we're going to have to address that capacity problem. Or more realistically, we just won't, and if the kids spread then oh well.
Where people mask up, and when the area has low covid levels, students don't spread that much. Once the area takes off, the schools do indeed spread. (Which is kind of an obvious statement when you think about it, like of course kids don't magically have COVID when nobody else does, but also that they can spread it once an area starts getting a significant infection rate.)
I don't think going back to school in a state that has banned schools from masking up, during the surge of delta variant we're currently undergoing, is particularly safe at all, no.
> No, it's because an education is a fundamental human right which is being denied to children, and the policy of closing schools has caused immense damage to their learning and mental health for practically zero benefit in reducing the harm caused by the virus.
It's great that you have such strongly-held values! Then you won't mind spending the money to expand schools appropriately so a safe environment can be maintained, since the education of children is such a critical social outcome.
Like, I remember my high school and 25 kids was a small class, and hell no we weren't 6 feet apart. Explain to me how we get 2500 people 6 feet away from each other in a building that was designed to serve 2000 students that are 2 feet away from each other. That's the question that has to be answered to reopen safely.
Once schools are reopen en-masse, instead of just a limited basis (that allows spacing), we're going to have to address that capacity problem. Or more realistically, we just won't, and if the kids spread then oh well.
Just trying to imagine the thought process that leads one to conclude -- given everything we know about Covid and its (lack of) harm to children, and the widespread availability of protective vaccines to any teachers & staff who want one -- that the thing we should do is spend vast resources stretching the size of every school building, classroom, and bus to ensure people can remain 6 feet apart at all times, in perpetuity. And that we shouldn't reopen schools until we do this. It's really something!
We should scan their brains to enure there's no damage. Or we may find out with a crime wave in 20 years (like with lead) that we didn't protect our children adequately.
The idea that children can be prevented from contracting SARS-CoV-2 in perpetuity is a scientific/technological fantasy tale. We don't even have sterilizing vaccines.
We should still transform education into remote one instead of halfassing remoting till we can drop it.
What an ignorant comment. Children without serious co-morbid conditions are not at risk.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cdc-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccin...
Lack of education is a greater risk for children (and society as a whole) than any virus.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cdc-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccin...
Lack of education is a greater risk for children (and society as a whole) than any virus.
Every wave in Poland happened roughly 3 weeks of opening schools (with new school year or after a lockdown).
There were just 3 waves and there wasn't a 4th one after last opening, but this might be due to vaccinations (esp of teachers) and horrible first 3 waves that might have infected most children and their families.
There were just 3 waves and there wasn't a 4th one after last opening, but this might be due to vaccinations (esp of teachers) and horrible first 3 waves that might have infected most children and their families.
The delta variant of coronavirus seems to have a R0 in the 8-10 range. That's why the case counts are rising so fast now.
So far 55% or so have been fully vaccinated. 83 million, or 25% of the population, is estimated by the CDC to have been infected. I would guess we are getting fairly close to 70%, but it's hard to say what the overlap between those two numbers is. If it's really as contagious as they say, then it's only a matter of time before we hit 80%. The issue will then be the distribution by location and how long the protection lasts.
We seem to be trying to "flatten the curve" and "slow the spread" to needlessly take extra long to get to the same final place - natural herd immunity.
Come on. It's because when we were trying to flatten the curve, there were far too many people who denied it was anything more serious than the flu and didn't take any precautions.
Same with slowing the spread. People did not listen.
Because they were "free critical thinkers who can reach their own conclusions thank you very much". And they were wrong. And now they've put us here.
Same with slowing the spread. People did not listen.
Because they were "free critical thinkers who can reach their own conclusions thank you very much". And they were wrong. And now they've put us here.
> there were far too many people who denied it was anything more serious than the flu and didn't take any precautions.
Well apparently quite a number of people must have taken precautions, because that's the explanation for why the flu has basically disappeared off the face of the earth.
Well apparently quite a number of people must have taken precautions, because that's the explanation for why the flu has basically disappeared off the face of the earth.
The flu is far less contagious than COVID.
Even small measures affect the numbers.
Even small measures affect the numbers.
Handwringing over obvious outcomes doesn't help, it turns out.
I wouldn't say needlessly. There are people in towns near my city that would normally be transported to the cities ICUs, but they can't because there is no room. People say the tests or the vaccine don't work but no one claims more than 3 percent of their hospitalized covid cases have been previously vaccinated. So, whatever the test tests for, the vaccine mostly prevents, and that thing is taking up way too many of my counties hospital beds. We can call it the flu, or the cold, or the vapors, but I wish everyone would go get their vapors vaccine so people who get in car wrecks could get fixed up in a timely manner.
It makes sense to impose restrictions where vaccination rates are low and ICUs are being filled up (or will be filled up due to continued growth in cases over the coming weeks in the absence of restrictions).
That's not the case in the SF Bay Area where vaccination rates are very high, keeping hospitalizations and ICU use low, yet mask mandates were reimposed here. We have plenty of ICU capacity.
That's not the case in the SF Bay Area where vaccination rates are very high, keeping hospitalizations and ICU use low, yet mask mandates were reimposed here. We have plenty of ICU capacity.
Isn’t that what is happening? I was just in the US for a couple weeks (Portland, OR) and rules were minimal and optional everywhere. Not the kind of thing that would drive mental health issues, as best I could tell.
That can't possibly be right, according to Fox News, Portland, OR is an authoritarian communist hellhole. Just glad you got out alive.
I am stunned so few governments publish such "in the wild" data.
The only way to judge the effectiveness of measures is to see how many people have actually been infected, not to count "confirmed" cases.
For instance, it seems only 8.8% is confirmed (or 88k out of 1 million) [1] . Add that to the 69% vaccinated with at least one dose [2], and you get 77.8% accounted for, which is less than the 95% quoted.
[1] - https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
[2] - https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
The only way to judge the effectiveness of measures is to see how many people have actually been infected, not to count "confirmed" cases.
For instance, it seems only 8.8% is confirmed (or 88k out of 1 million) [1] . Add that to the 69% vaccinated with at least one dose [2], and you get 77.8% accounted for, which is less than the 95% quoted.
[1] - https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
[2] - https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
Remember this includes vaccinated persons
Yep, just realized and edited.
Assuming the vaccination was successful in triggering the production of antibodies. It is unclear to me in what percentage of cases that is the case.
Hong Kong requires 2 weeks quarantine even for vaccinated people entering, unless they have proof not only of vaccination, but of antibody count.
Hong Kong requires 2 weeks quarantine even for vaccinated people entering, unless they have proof not only of vaccination, but of antibody count.
The immune response from vaccines is generally far less variable than the immune response from fighting off an infection naturally.
The CDC publishes that data.[1][2] It runs 6 weeks behind, though.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/abou...
[2] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#national-lab
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/abou...
[2] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#national-lab
Are these numbers comparable to OP? It's hard to reconcile that FL is at 24%, or NY at 13% w/ antibodies vs the headline.
Your implication is correct that the CDC chart is mostly incomparable to the OP. The chart tries to combine incomparable data, which annoyingly requires interpretation of the legend to understand correctly.
The circles indicate nucleocapsid (i.e., infection only) while the squares indicate spike (i.e., infection or vaccination).
So, Puerto Rico is 70% infected and/or vaccinated (a square). Whereas NY is 13% infected (a circle).
The circles indicate nucleocapsid (i.e., infection only) while the squares indicate spike (i.e., infection or vaccination).
So, Puerto Rico is 70% infected and/or vaccinated (a square). Whereas NY is 13% infected (a circle).
Note that the recent numbers in the CDC chart all seem to be measuring antibodies that only appear from infection, not vaccination (indicated by a circle instead of a square in the chart), while the numbers from the article appear to be measuring antibodies that appear from either infection or vaccination, so they are not directly comparable.
Yes. Which is annoying. Both can be measured, but apparently the commercial lab data only runs one of the two antibody tests.
There's also a blood bank antibody test. That's useful as a crosscheck. People who have blood drawn for medical purposes are in general sicker than average, and those who donate blood are healthier than average. So those set bounds on the measured values.
There's also a blood bank antibody test. That's useful as a crosscheck. People who have blood drawn for medical purposes are in general sicker than average, and those who donate blood are healthier than average. So those set bounds on the measured values.
> The only way to judge the effectiveness of measures is to see how many people have actually been infected
Can anyone provide links to recent peer-reviewed primary sources that estimate the number of individuals who have been infected in the U.S.?
If ~70% of people are asymptomatic, and we assume just about everyone has been exposed to and infected by the virus - haven't we already achieved herd immunity in the U.S.?
EDIT: Answered in solid source provided by animats - the seroprevalance estimate for the U.S. is 21.6% (95% CI - 21.2% to 22.22%). I also found a couple recent primary sources regarding the asymptomatic rate, see thread below.
Can anyone provide links to recent peer-reviewed primary sources that estimate the number of individuals who have been infected in the U.S.?
If ~70% of people are asymptomatic, and we assume just about everyone has been exposed to and infected by the virus - haven't we already achieved herd immunity in the U.S.?
EDIT: Answered in solid source provided by animats - the seroprevalance estimate for the U.S. is 21.6% (95% CI - 21.2% to 22.22%). I also found a couple recent primary sources regarding the asymptomatic rate, see thread below.
This assumes infection leads to immunity. It doesn't seem to be clear that this is true.
Here are some primary sources which support the fact that infection leads to robust and durable immunity.
[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf
[2] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf
[2] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
I know three people who got it twice and another who is a friend of a friend. Only one of those is known to be immunocompromised. Two of those got it the second time after also being vaccinated. I do wonder though if some of the second cases aren't people going in with the flu and having some covid fragments in their nose.
> I do wonder though if some of the second cases aren't people going in with the flu and having some covid fragments in their nose.
This is why using PCR tests cranked up to absurd cycle counts isn't the best way to determine _infection_.
This is why using PCR tests cranked up to absurd cycle counts isn't the best way to determine _infection_.
though nations like Australia that did flu checks last year estimated it was almost absent, and of those that tested positive very small percentages were vaccinated, so if its the flu, the covid vaccine is the best flu vaccine ever.
N=1, but I now know many people who have been vaccinated that have since been infected, where as up until recently I knew 2 people who got it this entire time (I'm in SF). One of these new people is a co-worker who got covid last year, then got Pfizer vaccinated, then got it again and almost was hospitalized. He's 29 and fit, and as far as I know, is not immunocompromised.
All the data shows that vaccination provides protection, but with all these new variants coming out (expect more over time), I don't believe herd immunity is any more possible than herd immunity with the flu or common cold.
All the data shows that vaccination provides protection, but with all these new variants coming out (expect more over time), I don't believe herd immunity is any more possible than herd immunity with the flu or common cold.
> I don't believe herd immunity is any more possible than herd immunity with the flu or common cold.
This seems to me to be a very strange thing to say.
We know precisely what the pattern is for herd immunity in the case of a coronavirus, because four of them cause what you are calling a "common cold". It's endemic equilibrium. To my knowledge, there is no dispute among experts on this point.
So to say that we can't achieve herd immunity because of its similarity to a virus against which we are indeed herd immune is, at best, begging the question.
If you have six minutes, this is a very acute description of the endemic equilibrium effect of herd immunity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsmDJYhteQs
This seems to me to be a very strange thing to say.
We know precisely what the pattern is for herd immunity in the case of a coronavirus, because four of them cause what you are calling a "common cold". It's endemic equilibrium. To my knowledge, there is no dispute among experts on this point.
So to say that we can't achieve herd immunity because of its similarity to a virus against which we are indeed herd immune is, at best, begging the question.
If you have six minutes, this is a very acute description of the endemic equilibrium effect of herd immunity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsmDJYhteQs
It's the default assumption given practically every other known virus, and is the core assumption of all epidemiological modeling. Somehow all what is known from epidemiology and virology has been thrown out of the window during COVID. If SARS-CoV-2 is somehow involved the sky is falling on us on any moment unless otherwise proven. Bizarre.
Don't know if they have a part in this, but at least it's extremely profitable for pharma to assume there's no immunity but what they provide.
Don't know if they have a part in this, but at least it's extremely profitable for pharma to assume there's no immunity but what they provide.
The fact that more people are in the hospital in Florida right now than at any time in the last two years would seem to disprove any speculation of here immunity.
How many have been infected twice?
Can we stop with this please?
> The fact that more people are in the hospital in Florida right now than at any time in the last two years
THIS IS NOT TRUE.
The metric you are describing is hospital census, which is _not_ at an all-time high right now.
What is at an all time high? The percentage of people in the hospital who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of their presentation.
The roundtable just yesterday confirmed that there are hospitals which have near 100% positivity, despite 80% presenting for things unrelated to a respiratory infection.
Some people are there for blunt trauma or routine surgery, but have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
I just don't understand the point of constantly misrepresenting this metric. It muddies the waters of actual concerns about the spread of the virus by making it seem like those are are concerned are dishonest.
Stop it.
> The fact that more people are in the hospital in Florida right now than at any time in the last two years
THIS IS NOT TRUE.
The metric you are describing is hospital census, which is _not_ at an all-time high right now.
What is at an all time high? The percentage of people in the hospital who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of their presentation.
The roundtable just yesterday confirmed that there are hospitals which have near 100% positivity, despite 80% presenting for things unrelated to a respiratory infection.
Some people are there for blunt trauma or routine surgery, but have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
I just don't understand the point of constantly misrepresenting this metric. It muddies the waters of actual concerns about the spread of the virus by making it seem like those are are concerned are dishonest.
Stop it.
I think the media is at least partly to blame for this. I have the greatest respect for the BBC, but look at this headline: Covid third wave: Florida surpasses all-time record for hospital admissions. Totally unsupported by the article. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58077209
With regards to metrics that are peaking, FT reports that "Occupancy in the south-eastern US state’s intensive care units is on course to hit an all-time high by this weekend." (But then again, I've no idea whether this is actually accurate since they don't cite their source. Besides, it's clearly an extrapolation.) https://www.ft.com/content/21ed4e9c-2b20-4a9d-bf38-6b76212be...
With regards to metrics that are peaking, FT reports that "Occupancy in the south-eastern US state’s intensive care units is on course to hit an all-time high by this weekend." (But then again, I've no idea whether this is actually accurate since they don't cite their source. Besides, it's clearly an extrapolation.) https://www.ft.com/content/21ed4e9c-2b20-4a9d-bf38-6b76212be...
The first line of the article is "The number of Covid patients in Florida hospitals has risen to a new high, breaking records set during previous waves before vaccines were available."
Then, there's a quote to that effect from a doctor, specific to their hospital.
Then, there's a quote to that effect from a doctor, specific to their hospital.
Right. The headline is about hospital census; the article does not support that point, and instead is about a different (and much less important, from a public health perspective) metric - admissions which are coincident with a positive test for a specific pathogen.
"The Florida Hospital Association on Monday reported 10,389 Covid-19 hospitalizations, the most statewide during any point in the pandemic. "
https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2021/08/02/flo...
> I just don't understand the point of constantly misrepresenting this metric. It muddies the waters of actual concerns about the spread of the virus by making it seem like those are are concerned are dishonest.
> Stop it.
That must be this "projection" I keep hearing about.
https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2021/08/02/flo...
> I just don't understand the point of constantly misrepresenting this metric. It muddies the waters of actual concerns about the spread of the virus by making it seem like those are are concerned are dishonest.
> Stop it.
That must be this "projection" I keep hearing about.
I don't understand. It sounds like we agree. The quote you've pulled confirms what I'm saying.
Hospital census is not what's at an all-time (or 2-year) high. SARS-CoV-2+ tests among admitted patients ("Covid-19 hospitalizations") are.
Hospital census is not what's at an all-time (or 2-year) high. SARS-CoV-2+ tests among admitted patients ("Covid-19 hospitalizations") are.
"People in the hospital" and "Covid-19 hospitalizations".
These are not the same thing.
These are not the same thing.
>I just don't understand the point of constantly misrepresenting this metric. It muddies the waters of actual concerns about the spread of the virus by making it seem like those are are concerned are dishonest.
>Stop it.
It's hopeless. The exact same thing happened last year, driven off of media that loved talking about how the local hospital is at the brink of collapse because "the ICU is 90% full". The few voices that pointed out that 90% ICU occupancy is a) normal and b) what hospitals plan for were overwhelmed.
The only time US hospitals anywhere were actually overrun with patients was a brief time in NYC in March 2020. Even that cleared up quickly; the US military hospital ship sent to NYC was barely used and soon left, and I don't believe the one sent to LA was used at all. All those tents built in hospital parking lots everywhere? Not used either.
>Stop it.
It's hopeless. The exact same thing happened last year, driven off of media that loved talking about how the local hospital is at the brink of collapse because "the ICU is 90% full". The few voices that pointed out that 90% ICU occupancy is a) normal and b) what hospitals plan for were overwhelmed.
The only time US hospitals anywhere were actually overrun with patients was a brief time in NYC in March 2020. Even that cleared up quickly; the US military hospital ship sent to NYC was barely used and soon left, and I don't believe the one sent to LA was used at all. All those tents built in hospital parking lots everywhere? Not used either.
If we assume everyone has been infected? Why would we assume that? The estimates I've seen (including asymptomatic) are around 1/3 infected. The source you cited is from 2020, so it doesn't tell us much about today.
Yup good catch about the old source, I removed that from my comment.
The source provided by animats puts the seroprevalence at 21.6% for the U.S. I think that should be a lower bound of the number of individuals who have been infected, given antibody levels wane over time (even though immunity does not necessarily wane).
The source provided by animats puts the seroprevalence at 21.6% for the U.S. I think that should be a lower bound of the number of individuals who have been infected, given antibody levels wane over time (even though immunity does not necessarily wane).
The CDC estimates that 36% of Americans have been infected. Of those, only 15% were completely asymptomatic but most had mild symptoms.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
Thanks for pointing that out and doing the math.
I did some digging, here is the paper outlining the methods and data sources for the numbers on the page you linked to [1]. That paper cites two other papers used to estimate the asymptomatic proportion [2][3].
Here is a more recent systematic review [4], which estimates that at least 33% of infections are asymptomatic.
And another recent paper which estimates the lower bound for asymptomatic proportion (AP) to be 37%, with an upper bound of 67% [5]. "The estimated AP varied with age, from 74% (95% CI 65–90%) for < 20 years, to 61% (95% CI 57–65%) for the 50–59 years age-group." [5]
[1] Estimated Incidence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Illness and Hospitalization—United States, February–September 2020 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/12/e1010/6000389
[2] Estimating the extent of asymptomatic COVID-19 and its potential for community transmission: Systematic review and meta-analysis https://jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jammi-2020-0...
[3] Age-dependent effects in the transmission and control of COVID-19 epidemics https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0962-9
[4] The Proportion of SARS-CoV-2 Infections That Are Asymptomatic https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M20-6976
[5] Estimating the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population: Analysis of nationwide serosurvey data in the Netherlands https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00768-y
I did some digging, here is the paper outlining the methods and data sources for the numbers on the page you linked to [1]. That paper cites two other papers used to estimate the asymptomatic proportion [2][3].
Here is a more recent systematic review [4], which estimates that at least 33% of infections are asymptomatic.
And another recent paper which estimates the lower bound for asymptomatic proportion (AP) to be 37%, with an upper bound of 67% [5]. "The estimated AP varied with age, from 74% (95% CI 65–90%) for < 20 years, to 61% (95% CI 57–65%) for the 50–59 years age-group." [5]
[1] Estimated Incidence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Illness and Hospitalization—United States, February–September 2020 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/12/e1010/6000389
[2] Estimating the extent of asymptomatic COVID-19 and its potential for community transmission: Systematic review and meta-analysis https://jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jammi-2020-0...
[3] Age-dependent effects in the transmission and control of COVID-19 epidemics https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0962-9
[4] The Proportion of SARS-CoV-2 Infections That Are Asymptomatic https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M20-6976
[5] Estimating the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population: Analysis of nationwide serosurvey data in the Netherlands https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00768-y
Asymptomatic is kind of a fuzzy concept so the numbers will vary based on methodology. If you test positive and then have a bit of diarrhea one day is that a COVID-19 symptom or the consequences of a bad burrito? In mild cases there's no way to be sure.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/s...
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/s...
I agree there can be many confounding factors.
To clarify your point: this leads you to the conclusion that the asymptomatic proportion is likely under-estimated? And conversely, the symptomatic proportion is likely over-estimated?
To clarify your point: this leads you to the conclusion that the asymptomatic proportion is likely under-estimated? And conversely, the symptomatic proportion is likely over-estimated?
> I am stunned so few governments publish such "in the wild" data
[warning: tinfoil hat...] Can you think of an incentive for governments to be honest with such "in the wild" data?
If you were a senior politician trying to assist your government in driving up the vaccination rate, then publishing hard data that 94% of your population already have the antibiodies is hardly going to help, is it?
[warning: tinfoil hat...] Can you think of an incentive for governments to be honest with such "in the wild" data?
If you were a senior politician trying to assist your government in driving up the vaccination rate, then publishing hard data that 94% of your population already have the antibiodies is hardly going to help, is it?
Simultaneously true:
* it is clear everyone will get it
* policy will be slow to adapt to that reality and continue strategy of containment
* it is clear everyone will get it
* policy will be slow to adapt to that reality and continue strategy of containment
When you’ve ran an 18 month fear campaign its hard to get people to stop being scared
Now it begins the game of how many times will everyone get it, and every bit of immunity and slowing the spread helps so when we arrive at a variant that spreads as easily as chicken pox that is also accidentally as lethal as SARS, we will have vaccine for this specific variant delivered faster than people die.
I can't access the article, but is this a random sample or a convenience sample?
The original ONS (Office for National Statistics) analysis is here:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...
Much more detail, more rigorous, primary source, and no pay wall.
(@dang: maybe use this as the post's URL?)
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...
Much more detail, more rigorous, primary source, and no pay wall.
(@dang: maybe use this as the post's URL?)
Great source and includes the downloadable data, thanks for sharing.
> While antibody positivity in the oldest age groups remains high, it decreased slightly in some regions and countries. This means that some people in these groups did not have enough antibodies to be detected in the test, not that they do not have any immune protection against the virus.
I found that sentence intriguing, here is the link they recommend for more information to explain why people might still have immune protection even with low (undetectable) levels of antibodies [1].
[1] https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2021/04/28/antibodies-and-immunity-h...
> While antibody positivity in the oldest age groups remains high, it decreased slightly in some regions and countries. This means that some people in these groups did not have enough antibodies to be detected in the test, not that they do not have any immune protection against the virus.
I found that sentence intriguing, here is the link they recommend for more information to explain why people might still have immune protection even with low (undetectable) levels of antibodies [1].
[1] https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2021/04/28/antibodies-and-immunity-h...
this data arguably shows that the choice really is between vaccination (+possibly weak infection) and infection. We can't hide from the virus.
This doesn't mean that the only choice is opening up everything, but eventually... yes. Concious governments should first try to get more people vaccinated. Long covid is too frequent, otherwise. (400k have it in UK, see: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/01/almost-400000-ha... )
This doesn't mean that the only choice is opening up everything, but eventually... yes. Concious governments should first try to get more people vaccinated. Long covid is too frequent, otherwise. (400k have it in UK, see: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/01/almost-400000-ha... )
> Long covid is too frequent, otherwise.
Q: Is there something about this that we need to worry about particularly?
I ask in the context of having had the Epstein-Barr virus in my late 30s and having been essentially knocked completely flat by it for the best part of a month, and not having recovered to full fitness for several months more.
When I was a child, my Dad had shingles (apparently for the first time) in his late 40s, he was really quite poorly, that also took him months to get over.
Endemic viruses already do this stuff, if you've even had a proper dose of seasonal flu you'll know what I'm taking about.
Is there a reason (and non-anecdotal data...) to specifically worry about the long-term effects of C19 _more_ than all the other endemic viruses?
Q: Is there something about this that we need to worry about particularly?
I ask in the context of having had the Epstein-Barr virus in my late 30s and having been essentially knocked completely flat by it for the best part of a month, and not having recovered to full fitness for several months more.
When I was a child, my Dad had shingles (apparently for the first time) in his late 40s, he was really quite poorly, that also took him months to get over.
Endemic viruses already do this stuff, if you've even had a proper dose of seasonal flu you'll know what I'm taking about.
Is there a reason (and non-anecdotal data...) to specifically worry about the long-term effects of C19 _more_ than all the other endemic viruses?
Useful overview for the UK.[1] This is the Financial Times chart of cases and deaths by state and country, updated daily since early 2020. Things to notice:
* UK cases spike. They go from 3 cases per 100K people in May to 71 cases per 100K in mid-July. That's the increased R0 of the Delta variant in action. Now they're declining rapidly, down to 39 cases per 100K people. Keep watching that graph; that shows herd immunity starting to take effect.
* US cases are way up, too, but started later than in the UK. The US curve is still going up, following the UK curve, but about a month behind. That's why medical authorities are saying the next two months will be really bad in the US.
* The US has about the same case rate as Tunisia, but a far lower death rate. Without good medical care, this is a killer disease.
[1] https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=eur&areas=usa&are...
* UK cases spike. They go from 3 cases per 100K people in May to 71 cases per 100K in mid-July. That's the increased R0 of the Delta variant in action. Now they're declining rapidly, down to 39 cases per 100K people. Keep watching that graph; that shows herd immunity starting to take effect.
* US cases are way up, too, but started later than in the UK. The US curve is still going up, following the UK curve, but about a month behind. That's why medical authorities are saying the next two months will be really bad in the US.
* The US has about the same case rate as Tunisia, but a far lower death rate. Without good medical care, this is a killer disease.
[1] https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=eur&areas=usa&are...
Amazing to see that the UK has >90% positive vaccine sentiment, and close to 90% with at least one dose of vaccines now. Am I reading that right? How did they manage to avoid the politicization of the issue that is keeping people from getting the shot in other Western countries?
They had Wakefield creating antivaxxers and then they had a journalist that got to the bottom of his BS. This expose was highly publicised so people got through into their heads that antivaxx is BS.
Wakefield then ran away to US and Brits lived happily ever after ... till Brexit.
At least that's what's postulated here https://youtu.be/8BIcAZxFfrc
Wakefield then ran away to US and Brits lived happily ever after ... till Brexit.
At least that's what's postulated here https://youtu.be/8BIcAZxFfrc
There were a few things that strike me (I'm British) as being quite relevant.
The first is that from very early on the PM was flanked by medical professionals who appeared to be apolitical and were considered by all 'sides' on the vaccine debate to be honest (even if their opinions were sometimes contentious). That credibility meant they were listened to.
The second is that the NHS is almost a religion over here - this contributes to the medical profession being extremely well trusted.
In many places in the world the frontline medical staff are trusted but the system isn't. We're lucky here in that largely both aspects retain their respect. Note that I'm not commenting on other nations health systems or their population's opinion of it. We (the UK) are not unique in having reasonable healthcare; this is more about our high perception of the system providing it.
Finally, as a society we are very compliant, and also with the not-for-profit AZ vaccine there was a certain feeling of a national champion who was also helping to save the world.
The first is that from very early on the PM was flanked by medical professionals who appeared to be apolitical and were considered by all 'sides' on the vaccine debate to be honest (even if their opinions were sometimes contentious). That credibility meant they were listened to.
The second is that the NHS is almost a religion over here - this contributes to the medical profession being extremely well trusted.
In many places in the world the frontline medical staff are trusted but the system isn't. We're lucky here in that largely both aspects retain their respect. Note that I'm not commenting on other nations health systems or their population's opinion of it. We (the UK) are not unique in having reasonable healthcare; this is more about our high perception of the system providing it.
Finally, as a society we are very compliant, and also with the not-for-profit AZ vaccine there was a certain feeling of a national champion who was also helping to save the world.
That plus ...
- https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9
- https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01557-z
... actually implies that we do not need widespread vaccination campaigns.
But guess what stocks the members of your government have in their depot and you bet they make sure you get your jab and the booster and the update and another booster ...
This is biggest scam in the history of the earth.
- https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9
- https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01557-z
... actually implies that we do not need widespread vaccination campaigns.
But guess what stocks the members of your government have in their depot and you bet they make sure you get your jab and the booster and the update and another booster ...
This is biggest scam in the history of the earth.