Freedom day update.

What do you think about the argument that letting a population with a low vaccination rate do what they like is the perfect petri dish in which to breed vaccine-resistant strains?

(Shouldn't really need saying, but this is a genuine question),

 

I genuinely don't know I'm not a epidemiologist.
If populations with a low vaccine rate are going to be a issue then regardless of what we do here we will need to close the borders.
From what I have read on the subject it seems the more likely outcome is tweeks to the vaccine and boosters for the vulnerable groups.
Hate to use the word as I know it triggers people but simular to how Flu is tackled on a yearly basis.

 

But what I'm saying is IF this government decided we needed a lockdown in winter (and I hope they don't, but you know as well as I do they're predictably unpredictable on these things!) would you accept vaccinated people being allowed to continue attending matches and events as opposed to having empty stadiums?

I'm not a defender of such Draconian rules as are being talked about but I think if it was a choice between an empty Oakwell and one full, but of only vaccinated people, regardless of covid levels I'd accept it. Temporarily.

I only used high cases or new variant because that's what I've read is being proposed by the government as a scenario where vaccines might be required for large events.

I am, obviously, horrified by the idea of people being turned away from essential activities such as shopping by their vaccine status.

 

Right I see, well I suppose I would have little choice but to accept it, I've got my second jab next week actually so personally I would be fine.
I would speak out agaisnt it though and I would really hope others would too. Widescale Discrimination based on medical history/status should not be taken lightly.

 

It's hard to argue with that. Though I do like the prospect of a full Oakwell no matter what this Winter

 

Am I right in thinking that across the UK 86% of adults have taken up their offer of a vaccination?

 

88% have had at least 1 dose and 70% have had both.

88% should, in theory, be enough for herd immunity.

 

Does that take into account vaccine efficacy not being 100%

 

Should do. Everything I've read seems to indicate that roughly 80% immunity is what's needed.

 

I thought it was something like that so did a quick attempt at the maths but wasn't sure if I'd ballsed up because people seem to talk about low take-up but that's a massive amount.

Is it 88% just vaccinated required or does the fact that a lot more of the unvaccinated population have antibodies from infection take us well above the required level?

 

Everything I've read seems to indicate that about 80% immunity is what's required. Obviously vaccines are not 100% effective (and different vaccines have different efficacy and they're all measured differently too, so there's not even a simple calculation), which has to be taken into account. 88% vaccinated should probably put us above where we need to be though even without previous infections taken into account.

Obviously also herd immunity is not a switch that's flipped and it can still take a few weeks or months to see the effects. But we're probably already at the minimum viable level required. That's not to say that more vaccinations aren't going to help, they definitely are, but they're probably not 'required' for herd immunity.

 

Herd immunity is based on vaccinated percentage of the population, not vaccinated percentage of adults. Do you mean 88% of the population would be enough for herd immunity or the just over 50% of the total population we currently have double vaccinated is enough? (Leaving aside arguments around if children should have it or not).

 

That's true actually and if I'm being honest I'd forgotten that kids exist for a second there.

88% is probably not enough then, in that case.

 

Herd immunity is reached when a certain percentage of the whole population is no longer susceptible to the virus (either through vaccines it natural infection). What percentage is needed is dependent on R0, i.e. the average number of secondary infections from each infection. Delta would probably have a R0 of 6 meaning we would need upwards of 84% no longer susceptible.

Given that the vaccines are not 100% at stopping transmission and we aren't jabbing kids I'd say we are nowhere near.

 

His 'backbone' is made up of a wobbly jelly substance which equates leadership with purging non-entity leftist groups as being tough! He's more interested than attacking people in his own party than he is in criticising the government. If he ever knew what the plot was he's lost it. Trying to look tough for electoral purposes does not equate to good leadership
Edit: Perhaps if he has the leadership skills to get some policies on board he could get everyone, including the left, behind him

 

Yes, the one in town. Its round the corner from me. Even less were wearing them yesterday when l called in.

 

I know, but people are commenting on if people are still wearing them.

 

Everything this government does is half-arsed. I understand there are risk/benefit concerns about vaccinating children, but without doing it, herd immunity is not possible, bearing in mind that there is little evidence that surviving the infection produces a strong enough immune response to prevent subsequent reinfection.

 

Jon Hopkins Uni were suggesting 70% vaccination of the population would be enough for herd immunity however that was before the Delta variant took off and given its based on transmission rates i guess that would now be higher. When we say population do we mean the world? Looking at the advise from medical authorities and academics following processes to slow and reduce infection rates along with vaccinating as many people as possible is needed to get anywhere near to herd immunity.

 

Ok , I was in at 12:30 to 12:40 yesterday & I thought the majority were still wearing masks, I'm in tommoz, I'll have a good look see.