Vaccine

[JohnnyMalaria]

Why did we decide to assign such a drastic cost to COVID that we did not assume to other diseases?

Because it was new and there was no effective treatment. The primary purpose of the "interventions" was to slow down the spread so as to not overwhelm the healthcare infrastructure until such time that treatment/vaccines were able to limit the number of serious infections such that the healthcare system can cope.

Left unchecked, hospital ICUs would have been swamped for much longer than has been the case and more people in need of intensive care with other diseases would have died.

Regarding those poor buggers who only have "around 10 years of quality life remaining" - they've paid into the system through their NI contributions for care and are entitled to receive it.

[tom66]

Completely agree that the initial lockdown for a novel disease was justified but once we realised that this virus was essentially a very serious flu - with a fatality rate about 5-10x worse than a typical winter flu and principally affecting the same demographics - then interventions would have been more appropriately targeted at those at risk.  Isolating the whole population beyond the period necessary to evaluate the virus spread and mortality was unjustified, and it also means we need to vaccinate more people.

Also, as a side note, whilst a common belief, NI contributions aren't specifically for the NHS - they go into the general taxation pot.  The number of NI contributions determines your eligibility to a full state pension, but most pensioners today will draw more from this pot than they contributed through NI.

[Mr. Scram]

Completely agree that the initial lockdown for a novel disease was justified but once we realised that this virus was essentially a very serious flu - with a fatality rate about 5-10x worse than a typical winter flu and principally affecting the same demographics - then interventions would have been more appropriately targeted at those at risk.  Isolating the whole population beyond the period necessary to evaluate the virus spread and mortality was unjustified, and it also means we need to vaccinate more people.

Also, as a side note, whilst a common belief, NI contributions aren't specifically for the NHS - they go into the general taxation pot.  The number of NI contributions determines your eligibility to a full state pension, but most pensioners today will draw more from this pot than they contributed through NI.

It's not just the fatality rate, but also how infectuous it is. At some point you start overwhelming the health care system and the number of entirely preventable deaths skyrocket. It's not a linear problem and not even exponential. That's why there were attempts to intervene before the fatal threshold was reached.

[coppice]

Why did we decide to assign such a drastic cost to COVID that we did not assume to other diseases?

Look how much the health service has saved in the last year, by not treating huge numbers of people with cancer and other expensive diseases. Nobody will suffer for the premature deaths they have caused there, as it would be extremely difficult to isolate them in the statistics.

[Zero999]

COVID-19 has an IFR of approximately ~0.4% [1] in England.   So, if we take base case assumptions, at a 100% infection rate (more realistic would be 75-85%) and 56 million in England, we'd expect to see cca ~224,000 deaths in England.  Instead, we have seen about 85,000 in England.

So, interventions have potentially saved ~139,000 lives -- although the true figure may only be known by the end of the year once vaccinations are complete and this pessimistically assumes that behaviour wouldn't change at all with COVID present.

The question is was the cost of the interventions worth the numbers saved? At first glance it seems so,  but I would argue it is more difficult to say. The NHS typically spends around £30,000 per person-year saved, and the average COVID patient who dies has around 10 years of quality life remaining.   This seems cold, but every healthcare system, public or private, has to determine whether the cost of an intervention is proportionate to its benefit.   So the maths is fairly simple: £300,000 (total cost of typical intervention for 10 years gained) * 139,000 = £41.7 billion.

The actual cost spent is closer to £300 bn in direct Treasury costs, plus around 4% in GDP loss after the pandemic's effects are over [2],  plus additional unknown costs in the form of permanently lost jobs and social development.   Ignoring the last term as it is impractical to assign a direct cost to it, but we have easily spent around £400 bn on COVID - ten times what we would spend on, for instance, lung cancer, or heart disease.

Why did we decide to assign such a drastic cost to COVID that we did not assume to other diseases?

[1] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/estimating-the-infection-fatality-ratio-in-england/
[2] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8866/

The exact IFR for COVID 19 is unknown because the number of cases is inexact. 0.4% is towards the lower bound of estimates for the UK. It would mean that just over half of the population have been exposed to this date, which is unlikely. The true IFR is likely to be double that.
https://fullfact.org/health/toby-young-ifr-tweet/
https://www.edgehealth.co.uk/post/as-many-as-1-in-5-people-in-england-have-had-the-covid-19-disease

The IFR depends on the quality of care available. Had the health system been overwhelmed, it would have been several times higher and included many more in their 50s.

It's actually impossible to know how many lives COVID-19 has really cost in the UK, at the moment. There's the collateral, due to people not receiving treatment, both due to not seeking it through anxiety of getting the virus and cancelled treatments/appointments.

If we look at the excess deaths, one might think it would paint a more accurate picture, but some people would have just died a year or so early. We will only know for sure, when herd immunity has reached the point to which COVID-19 is no longer causing severe disease and death. Then, number of excess deaths could fall below the long term average, as there will be fewer frail around to die of other causes. Looking at the total excess deaths between March 2020 and March 2025, vs the long term five year average, will probably give us more realistic number lives lost due to COVID-19.

I honestly don't know if the government have done the right thing with lockdown. My opinion has changed from one extreme to the other, throughout the last year. I think we could have kept a lot of things open: shops, hairdressers and beauty salons probably didn't need to close, as with suitable PPE the risk is minimal, but it was definitely right to close restaurants, nightclubs, bars etc. when it became apparent cases were out of control. On the other hand closing more down than necessary might have made people take it more seriously and many businesses would have struggled anyway, as people stayed in more, even if they weren't forced to. Many other countries have done a similar thing, so we're hardly unique.

[Zero999]

I had my first shot on Thursday, but thought I'd wait a couple of days before posting this. I've had fairly mild side effects. I'm not sure whether it's the vaccine, or me feeling a little tired at the weekend, which is often the case. I was up a little late on Friday, so came into work about 15 minutes late and I slept in a couple of hours today.

Anyway, I'll start at the beginning. On Wednesday I heard the under 40s will be offered the vaccine on Thursday morning, so I tried to book, both by phone and on the Internet, as soon as I got into work that morning. Unfortunately they wanted me to travel 12 miles, when there's a vaccination centre within easy walking distance from where I work. The phone call was frustrating. The operator had a heavy Indian accent. I asked why I couldn't get it done locally he said it was because the nearest centre was fully booked, which was a lie. Someone at work sent an email to all staff, telling them the local centre was doing a walk in service, but for over 40s only. I put down the phone and thought I'd try my luck with the local centre, even though I'm under 40. Fortunately they had no problem with giving the shot. They explained to me it's the AstraZeneca, yet under 40s are recommended to get the Pfizer, but they'd do it anyway. I think the online/phone in service only offered me centres which did the Pfizer, but it would have been good to get the choice.

The media have overplayed the risks of the AstraZeneca and underplayed those of the Pfizer jab, which is motivated by money. AstraZeneca aren't making a profit on the vaccine and have actually lost money on it, where as Pfizer have turned a healthy profit. Governments have been lobbied to avoid the cheapest and give out the most expensive vaccines. The Pfizer isn't 100% safe either. There have been reports of myocarditis, where it's been exclusively rolled out in Israel. Of course I would have had no problem with getting the Pfizer, but I'd rather not travel when it's not necessary.

[madires]

AstraZeneca is fine as long as you don't have antibodies for PF4 (a part of thrombocytes) which could trigger a sinus venous thrombosis. And the typical side effects are similar to a flu, but last just one or two days. The recommended minimum age for AstraZeneca seems to be questionable because a new study (unfortunately not robust because of an insufficient number of cases) indicates that people over 60 are also effected by sinus venous thrombosis and other related diseases after the vaccination. Again, the risk for women is about four/five times larger than for men.

[Zero999]

AstraZeneca is fine as long as you don't have antibodies for PF4 (a part of thrombocytes) which could trigger a sinus venous thrombosis. And the typical side effects are similar to a flu, but last just one or two days. The recommended minimum age for AstraZeneca seems to be questionable because a new study (unfortunately not robust because of an insufficient number of cases) indicates that people over 60 are also effected by sinus venous thrombosis and other related diseases after the vaccination. Again, the risk for women is about four/five times larger than for men.

Yes, older people have has blood clots, due to the vaccine. The idea for the age limit is not to eliminate all risk, which is impossible, but to balance it with the benefit. I think the lower age limit is sensible, because people in their 60s are at a relatively high risk of severe COVID-19. The infection rate and vaccine availability should also be a factors in deciding what vaccine to give. In areas with high infection rates and the AZ is widely available, the age limit should be lower, because the risks of the disease are higher, than the vaccine. On the other hand if there are few people with the virus, the age limit should be raised, as the risk of infection is lower, so it makes less sense to have a vaccine with a higher risk. This is the reason why the UK dropped the age limit for the AZ recently. What doesn't make any sense is that sex isn't taken into account. We should be giving men the AstraZeneca and women the Pfizer.

It's funny how the media in Europe have been so obsessed with AZ and blood clots, yet overlook the myocarditis in men associated with the Pfizer. Being a male in my late 30s, I definitely feel safer with the AZ. Don't get me wrong, I would have has the Pfizer, if it was the only one available, but it wouldn't be my first choice.

Another general point is the media go on about herd immunity, which is actually impossible to achieve in the sense of stopping the virus spreading completely. I remember at the start of the pandemic, doctors said figures of around 70% of the population would need to be immune to stop the virus from spreading, which makes sense given R₀ was expected to be around 3.5 and  1-1/3.5 = 0.71, but that assumes complete immunity. It's unlikely the vaccines will be that effective to all the new variants and there'll be sufficient take-up for herd immunity. Fortunately they do seem to be highly effective at preventing severe disease and death and we hopefully will have sufficient levels of herd immunity to prevent a repeat of last winter.

[coppice]

I had my first shot on Thursday, but thought I'd wait a couple of days before posting this. I've had fairly mild side effects. I'm not sure whether it's the vaccine, or me feeling a little tired at the weekend, which is often the case. I was up a little late on Friday, so came into work about 15 minutes late and I slept in a couple of hours today.

There are two vaccination centres in York, one at the northern end and one at the southern end. Everyone seems to get their first appointment at the southern one, and their second appointment at the northern one. I have no idea why.

The media have overplayed the risks of the AstraZeneca and underplayed those of the Pfizer jab, which is motivated by money. AstraZeneca aren't making a profit on the vaccine and have actually lost money on it, where as Pfizer have turned a healthy profit. Governments have been lobbied to avoid the cheapest and give out the most expensive vaccines. The Pfizer isn't 100% safe either. There have been reports of myocarditis, where it's been exclusively rolled out in Israel. Of course I would have had no problem with getting the Pfizer, but I'd rather not travel when it's not necessary.

You mean politicians have a scant disregard for people's well being, and a high regard for monied interests? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

[Monkeh]

There have been reports of myocarditis, where it's been exclusively rolled out in Israel.

How many, vs how many doses? So far there's no solid information I can find beyond a vague suggestion of a correlation.

[steve30]

There are two vaccination centres in York, one at the northern end and one at the southern end. Everyone seems to get their first appointment at the southern one, and their second appointment at the northern one. I have no idea why.

A relative of mine from Doncaster ended up booking her appointment all the way over in Wakefield. Fortunately though she managed to get it changed to one more local. Around the same time there was an article in the paper which said that lots of people were being offered appointments a very long distance away. This turned out to be due to how the appointments were issued and if anyone was offered such an appointment they'd be better off phoning back in a couple of days time to to get a local one.

[tooki]

Well, as of yesterday, I’m fully vaccinated!

I feel like crap, but more because the joint aches made it impossible to find a comfy position to sleep, so I barely slept at all. But hey, IT’S DONE!!

(Moderna, btw.)

[Red Squirrel]

I'm getting my first shot today!  Originally my age group was only in July but they've been moving it up as we get more supply, now anyone 18+ can go.

Going to be a good excuse to upgrade my phone to a 5G model, now that I'll be a walking cell tower. 

[Zero999]

There have been reports of myocarditis, where it's been exclusively rolled out in Israel.

How many, vs how many doses? So far there's no solid information I can find beyond a vague suggestion of a correlation.

Yes, that's exactly why I'm a little wary of the Pfizer vaccine. The data from Israel was leaked. The studies on AZ are also a bit flaky. The blood clots have a higher incidence in young women, but that's to be expected anyway, since it could be in part due to oral contraceptives.

The severe adverse side effects of the vaccines have all been associated with the immune response, so it's reasonable to expect that if someone was infected with the real thing, they would be at much greater risk of sinus venous thrombosis, or myocarditis etc. than if they were vaccinated. This also means that any vaccine we make will carry some risk of an inflammatory immune response. To me it makes sense to be vaccinated, irrespective of how many people are infected at the moment, because if not enough people get the vaccine, cases will rise in future.

[Gyro]

I had my second AZ jab a couple of weeks ago. Absolutely no symptoms from the first one (I think I detected a slightly sore arm when I rolled over in bed, but nothing during the day).

I felt a little bit rough for a couple of days after the second one, hopefully that indicated that the first jab had 'primed' me.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Heads up if you have had Lyme disease...

I've now had both doses of the Moderna vaccine and both times it wiped the floor with me. It triggered exactly the same symptoms as when I contracted Lyme disease in 2018. Immense lethargy, almost total cognitive shutdown and depression. I hadn't anticipated it for the first dose but I was more prepared for the second. I relied on the same battery of supplements I used for the Lyme, in particular liposomal glutathione. For me, I believe the vaccine triggered extensive inflammation, esp. in the brain. Genetically, I have certain mutant enzymes that interfere with my own production of glutathione - a critical antioxidant - leading to autoimmune chaos.

Of course, your kilometerage will vary (hopefully for the better )

[Red Squirrel]

Lyme disease sounds horrible.  We have ticks here now and it terrifies me to know that some microscopic bug can basically destroy my quality of life forever or even kill me.  They say to wear pants if you go in the bush, but wearing pants in middle of summer is not exactly fun, either and it won't save you from any that might land in your hair or other exposed body parts.  Apparently they did have a vaccine for that but guess they could not get it to work safely.  Hopefully this is something they revisit at some point.

[rfclown]

I just had my first Pfizer shot yesterday. I find the science behind the mRNA vaccines facinating, but if I weren't married, I wouldn't have been vaccinated yet. I'll turn 60 this year, have no chronic medical issues, and don't FEEL at risk. I'm an engineer, logical thinker, try to educate myself on the facts, and make decisions based on facts. From the facts that I'm aware of, I'd hold off because of not knowing the long term side effects of the mRMA approach. Seems like we have enough evidence at this point to see what the short term risks are. My decision to get the vaccine at this time is weighed by the facts of my personal situation: my wife is terrified by this whole thing. Her cortisol levels have been through the roof for a year now, and that it bad for her health. I care about my wife. She lost a brother-in-law from this, and she worries about me and her kids. She has nurse friends who have left their jobs over issues with COVID. For the physical and mental health of my wife, and for my mental health, I am choosing to be vaccinated. It took me a while to be ok to do this. I've read copious amounts of material. I don't listen to the talking heads. My wife was vaccinated just 3 days before me. It was a huge thing for her just to go out and get it done.

[Monkeh]

I just had my first Pfizer shot yesterday. I find the science behind the mRNA vaccines facinating, but if I weren't married, I wouldn't have been vaccinated yet. I'll turn 60 this year, have no chronic medical issues, and don't FEEL at risk. I'm an engineer, logical thinker, try to educate myself on the facts, and make decisions based on facts. From the facts that I'm aware of, I'd hold off because of not knowing the long term side effects of the mRMA approach. Seems like we have enough evidence at this point to see what the short term risks are. My decision to get the vaccine at this time is weighed by the facts of my personal situation: my wife is terrified by this whole thing. Her cortisol levels have been through the roof for a year now, and that it bad for her health. I care about my wife. She lost a brother-in-law from this, and she worries about me and her kids. She has nurse friends who have left their jobs over issues with COVID. For the physical and mental health of my wife, and for my mental health, I am choosing to be vaccinated. It took me a while to be ok to do this. I've read copious amounts of material. I don't listen to the talking heads. My wife was vaccinated just 3 days before me. It was a huge thing for her just to go out and get it done.

Zero consideration for the risk remaining unvaccinated would pose to the general public, I see.

[TimFox]

With the recent CDC announcement that vaccinated individuals need not wear masks in many situations, but the general opinion that it is impolite (or politically incorrect) to inquire of others about their vaccination status, I must trust the unmasked individuals who I encounter to have been vaccinated.  Why does this make me uncomfortable?

[Monkeh]

With the recent CDC announcement that vaccinated individuals need not wear masks in many situations, but the general opinion that it is impolite (or politically incorrect) to inquire of others about their vaccination status, I must trust the unmasked individuals who I encounter to have been vaccinated.  Why does this make me uncomfortable?

Because people are just going to stop wearing their masks and lie, because somehow wearing a mask is equivalent in the minds of many to being locked in a cell.

[Zero999]

One thing I don't get is why masks and vaccines have been politicised in the US, with those who are on the right being against them and those on the left strongly in favour. Here in the UK, they're seen as a public health measures. It's true those on the extreme right and other minorities are against them, but that's because they don't trust the government, like any other group of people who feel marginalised.

I just had my first Pfizer shot yesterday. I find the science behind the mRNA vaccines facinating, but if I weren't married, I wouldn't have been vaccinated yet. I'll turn 60 this year, have no chronic medical issues, and don't FEEL at risk. I'm an engineer, logical thinker, try to educate myself on the facts, and make decisions based on facts. From the facts that I'm aware of, I'd hold off because of not knowing the long term side effects of the mRMA approach. Seems like we have enough evidence at this point to see what the short term risks are. My decision to get the vaccine at this time is weighed by the facts of my personal situation: my wife is terrified by this whole thing. Her cortisol levels have been through the roof for a year now, and that it bad for her health. I care about my wife. She lost a brother-in-law from this, and she worries about me and her kids. She has nurse friends who have left their jobs over issues with COVID. For the physical and mental health of my wife, and for my mental health, I am choosing to be vaccinated. It took me a while to be ok to do this. I've read copious amounts of material. I don't listen to the talking heads. My wife was vaccinated just 3 days before me. It was a huge thing for her just to go out and get it done.

Yes, another reason why I feel safer with the AstraZeneca jab. It's based on a much older, proven technology: a deactivated viral vector. Again, I still would have accepted the Pfizer, if I didn't have the choice.

On the other hand, I don't see how getting the vaccine could cause problems several months, or years down the road. I'm not aware of any other vaccine causing problems years later, even though the person felt fine for the first five or so weeks. Those who do get chronically ill from a vaccine, say they develop Guillain-Barré syndrome, do so fairly soon afterwards. It doesn't happen several months, or years later.

Good on you for considering others, before yourself, but you should also think of the rest of society, outside your family. I'm quite a bit younger than you and the main reason why I got the jab was to protect everyone else, not just my family. I think you've probably made the right decision for yourself, as no one knows for sure how this virus will affect them. There have been plenty of people under 60 who have gotten really sick from COVID-19, even if it didn't kill them.

[TimFox]

The main reason for the politicization of masking in the USA is that our previous president ranged from unenthusiastic about mask wearing to ridiculing those who masked.  Thus, a technical issue (with some controversy) became a signal of ones location along the political spectrum.  There was no communication from above about joining together, shoulder to shoulder, to defeat the virus for the good of the community.
This all reminds me of the Monty Python sketch about parliamentary elections between the Sensible Party, the Silly Party, and the fringe Very Silly Party.

[tszaboo]

I honestly don't know if the government have done the right thing with lockdown. My opinion has changed from one extreme to the other, throughout the last year. I think we could have kept a lot of things open: shops, hairdressers and beauty salons probably didn't need to close, as with suitable PPE the risk is minimal, but it was definitely right to close restaurants, nightclubs, bars etc. when it became apparent cases were out of control. On the other hand closing more down than necessary might have made people take it more seriously and many businesses would have struggled anyway, as people stayed in more, even if they weren't forced to. Many other countries have done a similar thing, so we're hardly unique.

With every infection, there is a chance of mutation. There have been several nasty mutations already, some are more infections, some is killing children as well. Some might become so mutated, that the vaccines will be useless. We didn't know what was going to happen, and what will happen in the next years. I think the complete lockdown was very well justified, as we could end up with a something much worse than this.

I just had my first Pfizer shot yesterday. I find the science behind the mRNA vaccines facinating, but if I weren't married, I wouldn't have been vaccinated yet. I'll turn 60 this year, have no chronic medical issues, and don't FEEL at risk.

People of all ages died because of this. And could be even scarier, the complications that they are reporting after mild cases. They report hearth damage, can cause strokes, seizures and Guillain-Barre syndrome... We dont even have a very good estimate how many people might die early after having just a mild case of this pandemic.

This is not the seasonal flu.

[JohnnyMalaria]

With the recent CDC announcement that vaccinated individuals need not wear masks in many situations, but the general opinion that it is impolite (or politically incorrect) to inquire of others about their vaccination status, I must trust the unmasked individuals who I encounter to have been vaccinated.  Why does this make me uncomfortable?

Because, quite rightly, you are angry at the idea that some selfish sods refuse to get the vaccination and will use the new ruling to be even more selfish. Also, being vaccinated isn't a 100% guarantee at not getting infected, so knowing that there are people who are willing to walk around unvaccinated without masks means that they are still putting you at a risk of infection. However, they are the ones likely to get infected and evolution will take its course.