Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[Sheilbh]

I do believe that lockdowns work, but in this 3rd iteration (for the UK) I'm disappointed that there isn't more fine-tuning.......not even that fine really, essentially that outdoors activity is typically very safe.

There's still what seems to me like a moral panic about outside "crowds" despite the fact that globally there are precious few examples of outside transmission. It is low risk.

We know what's high risk, from Zeynep Tufekci's feed, "indoors, workplaces, mostly poor and minority essential workers, crowded housing, congregate living, elderly."

But in this country we're still worried about hand-washing and surface cleaning as major public health messages despite there being, from what I've read, zero evidence of surface transmission. It's really infuriating that we're not just banging on about ventilation all the time and distinguishing between indoor (high risk) activities and outdoor (low risk) activities.

[celedhring]

Yeah, whenever I go into an establishment with all the windows closed but half a dozen sanitizer dispensers I nearly go berserk. Granted, it's still cold-ish so sanitizers are less troublesome than open windows, but damn are we missing the whole point of this.

[Sheilbh]

Worrying signs in Germany that government having the procurement conflict with Astrazeneca and not allowing the vaccine for over 65s creates considerable rejection of the AZ vaccine here. When you consider the snail speed at which we are progressing that's another limiting factor. The whole vaccine rollout here leaves much to be improved.

I think the Handelsblatt report was unehlpful as well and it's something I've complained about the entire pandemic, but political correspondents reporting on science based on briefings by politicians, or civil servants, or spads is not great in a pandemic.

I also understand there have been some reports on side effects. Again I think the media have a responsibility to be really careful in how they report side effects, people getting infected after being vaccinated but before it's had an effect and allergic reactions. These are bad things and sad stories, but they are generally to be expected. I think it's really important to not report them in a way that is more sensationalist than necessary. I think that applies everywhere and is nowhere near specific to Germany. But I really think the media has a duty around reporting on these vaccines.

[Sheilbh]

So some initial data coming through from the UK - we're expecting more today - on the impact of vaccinations. We know that a single dose of the AZ vaccine actually improves in effectiveness for up to three months and, obviously, have taken a risk that the second Pfizer dose can be delayed for three months as well. I think this is being monitored through different bits of NHS data - in the background, of course, we actually have no idea how long protection lasts for at all. From what I understand people who participated in the trials last year are not being vaccinated so we can see how long it lasts for.

From a BBC Scotland reporter:

A Scottish study shows covid vaccination substantially reduces the risk of severe illness resulting in hospitalisation. It's the first study to describe the effect of the Pfizer & AZ vaccines nationally. 1/2
4 wks after the first dose, Pfizer cut the risk by up to 85%; for AstraZeneca, the reduction was 94%. Among the over 80s, the combined figure was an 81% reduction. The preliminary data from the EAVE II project covers 1.14 million vaccinations given between 8 Dec & 15 February 2/2

The figure for the over 80s is really positive given how dangerous this disease for that age group. I also think it makes sense to focus on the severe illness/hospitalisation and death figures following a vaccine rather than mild illness - because I feel like the bad thing with covid is that people are dying, not that people are having mild illnesses. But these look like really positive figures.

[Tamas]

I also think it makes sense to focus on the severe illness/hospitalisation and death figures following a vaccine rather than mild illness - because I feel like the bad thing with covid is that people are dying, not that people are having mild illnesses. But these look like really positive figures.

Totally agreed. If vaccination can for certain limit the infection's impact to non-hospital/no long-term damage level illness that should be perfectly acceptable.

[Sheilbh]

We'll get Johnson's "roadmap" out of lockdown today. But based on the leaks I am far more comfortable with this approach which seems a lot more sensible than previous lockdown lifting measures.

So from what I understand each stage will take place 3-4 weeks after the last loosening of the rules, so if it leads to case numbers shooting up we know the cause can stop - as opposed to a big bang approach of everything re-opening at once. They also seem to be linked to the vaccine target dates.

This is just based on leaks but schools and kids outside will be re-opening in early March, 3 weeks after the 4 high risk groups have received their vaccines so everyone in that group should have a siginificant amount of immunity. I've said all along I think schools should be the priority and if that means closing down hospitality etc, then I'm fine with that.

Then in April outdoor mingling and hospitality will be re-opened. On current trends in vaccinations, I think that will be 3-4 weeks after the medium risk groups will have been vaccinated. So again by then, all medium and high risk people should have a decent amount of immunity (or had the opportunity to get it).

Then in May non-essential retail and indoor hospitality re-opens. This isn't directly linked to vaccine schedules because everyone is meant to be done by end of July, but the high risk groups should have mostly received their booster shot and it will be about a month after the April re-opening so we can see if that has any impact.

Now I am not confident the government will be able to necessarily execute this competently - but in theory this seems a lot more sensible than previous lockdown lifting measures and also seems focused on education/social needs first and business second, which is new. Hopefully we have another spring like last year with beautiful weather so we all want to be outside anyway.

[Josquius]

Now they're getting into the general population they really need to by prioritising teachers and emergency services for vaccination. Perhaps as a secondary priority bus drivers too?
Opening up the schools should be a priority but in that they should be minimising the risk as much as possible.

[Sheilbh]

Now they're getting into the general population they really need to by prioritising teachers and emergency services for vaccination. Perhaps as a secondary priority bus drivers too?
Opening up the schools should be a priority but in that they should be minimising the risk as much as possible.

So teachers are no more likely statistically to get covid than the general population and are lower risk than the other medium risk groups. I actually we should probably prioritise transport workers, shop workers and delivery workers who are more likely to get covid than teachers and emergency services.

We won't because public sector workers are more popular and more politically effective - but they are lower risk.

[Legbiter]

So teachers are no more likely statistically to get covid than the general population and are lower risk than the other medium risk groups. I actually we should probably prioritise transport workers, shop workers and delivery workers who are more likely to get covid than teachers and emergency services.

We won't because public sector workers are more popular and more politically effective - but they are lower risk.

If the local teachers' union had had their way all schools would still be closed pending a cure for death being discovered. Thankfully they got set straight real quick. They did manage to place themselves in one of the priority categories as a sop but thankfully only after everyone over 60 has been fully vaccinated.

[Tamas]

My 73 years old dad in Hungary got a call from his GP that since he registered to want a jab, they have some Chinese on stock its his turn. He said he'd rather wait for something else.

All the while, I am just reading in The Economist, China itself has not started vaccinating over-60s because they don't have data on safety for that age group.

Madness.

[Legbiter]

I've seen nothing on any Chinese vaccine, good or bad. Might be excellent like the Sputnik one or not.

[Tamas]

I've seen nothing on any Chinese vaccine, good or bad. Might be excellent like the Sputnik one or not.

Do we actually know if the Sputnik one is excellent, like, from reliable testing?

But yes my main issue is that it is untested, yet over-70s in Hungary are getting stabbed with it.

On a less important note, it also appears that Hungary has paid double price for the Chinese vaccine than for the Western ones.

[The Larch]

I've seen nothing on any Chinese vaccine, good or bad. Might be excellent like the Sputnik one or not.

Do we actually know if the Sputnik one is excellent, like, from reliable testing?

The Lancet (the world's foremost peer-reviewed medical publication) did analysis of the Sputnik vaccine trials and gave it its blessing. They're not regulators but they should know what they're doing.

The Sinopharm one, on the contrary, has no non-Chinese study on it, AFAIK. It does have full authorization in China, though, which the Sputnik one doesn't have in Russia (it only has emergency authorization).

Getting the Russian or Chinese vaccines still beats not getting any, in any case. If they were unsafe it'd be known by now.

[DGuller]

I was out for a walk and was surprised to find that golf courses are shut. Now, to me it makes sense for the 19th hole to be shuttered, but a round of golf with a couple of other golfers strikes me as being almost certainly harmless. In fact one might be tempted to argue that an unnecessary restriction like the golf ban might be counter-productive; along the lines of "...well we can't go golfing so...drinks at my place 2pm?".

I do believe that lockdowns work, but in this 3rd iteration (for the UK) I'm disappointed that there isn't more fine-tuning.......not even that fine really, essentially that outdoors activity is typically very safe.

It's the same old issue of policymakers not understanding that compliance is something to be managed.  Stupid restrictions use up your compliance budget that could be spent elsewhere, as well as reduce it overall, as people stop believing that you know WTF you're doing with any of the restrictions.

[Sheilbh]

The Lancet (the world's foremost peer-reviewed medical publication) did analysis of the Sputnik vaccine trials and gave it its blessing. They're not regulators but they should know what they're doing.

The Sinopharm one, on the contrary, has no non-Chinese study on it, AFAIK. It does have full authorization in China, though, which the Sputnik one doesn't have in Russia (it only has emergency authorization).

Getting the Russian or Chinese vaccines still beats not getting any, in any case. If they were unsafe it'd be known by now.

Wasn't there a Brazilian study of Sinopharm?

It is interesting that Russia is using this so politically - ie export agreements before vaccinating their own people, but I understand there are big questions about their supply chain. With China I can kind of understand it - they have very few cases so domestic vaccination is probably lower priority than political benefits (e.g. supply Hungary, Serbia, Brazil etc) and there'll be lower internal pressure for vaccines because people feel less at risk.

It's the same old issue of policymakers not understanding that compliance is something to be managed.  Stupid restrictions use up your compliance budget that could be spent elsewhere, as well as reduce it overall, as people stop believing that you know WTF you're doing with any of the restrictions.

In theory I agree and this was a big concern I had - the counter-argument I suppose is a few broad rules are easy to communicate, easier to follow and easier to enforce (if necessary) rather than nuanced and more complex rules. But from the minutes that have been released the UK government has been very concerned from the start with compliance and fatigue. It's one of the reasons we went into lockdown late - but it turns out they were entirely wrong.

In practice in the UK there doesn't seem to be a compliance budget. Every single time the government has relaxed the rules it's done so against public opinion which wants more stringent rules and more strict enforcement. Even now there was a poll last week showing that British people didn't think pubs and non-essential retail should open before the end of May at the earliest. I don't think that's because they've a sort of evidenced base of that take, I think it just signifies support for the strictest option possible at the minute. And compliance is generally high - everyone reports that they are complying but they suspect other people aren't (this is a big reason the government is avoiding the blame is we're not blaming them, we're blaming each other). As someone said based on the 10 year prison sentence people support - no-one ever lost money betting on the authoritarianism of the British public