oldhippydude
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 6,016
The rich countries that have bought all the vaccines are rapidly approaching the time when things are as good as it is going to get.
The most vulnerable have been vaccinated and all adults have had the chance to book at least their first jab.
Vaccine rates are slowing because we are running out of people who want it.
The Uk is fortunate it has high vaccine take up but even here a combination of the unvaccinated and the fact vaccines are not 100% effective against the delta variant means that there will be no herd immunity for society anytime soon.
Whether we like it or not societies are opening up their economies. We can disagree about the details of how quick this opening should be but there is only one direction of travel. This will lead to a growth in infections. There is no getting away from that. It is showing already in the numbers in Europe and North America. If flattening the curve is your thing you might want to spread this growth over a longer time. Personally I am ok with getting it over with quicker.
Scotland was at the forefront of this growth in infections. We went from among the lowest rates in Europe to the highest a couple of weeks before the rest of the UK. We are now eleven days past the peak of that wave and numbers of infections have been steadily falling since then. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53511877 Intensive care patient numbers are leveling off and will start falling soon, as will deaths.
There is no reason to think the rest of the Uk will not follow a similar pattern with Europe and America following along behind as the delta variant does its thing of finding the gaps in our vaccine protection.
This is how I see things going.
Imo there should be a lot more honest communication from the government that part of the new normal is going to be that, the same people that were most at risk before we had vaccines are the same ones, most at risk after we have vaccinated those that want it. The vaccines drastically reduce your risk but do not eliminate it so covid illness and death will continue but at a much lower rate.
Will this rate of illness and death be acceptable ?
Few of us are prepared to admit that any death is acceptable, though we accept masses of death from all sorts of causes all the time. We will leave these decisions to the policy makers and pretend it has nothing to do with us.
I found this interesting on acceptable risk, though it is from well before covid https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/iwachap10.pdf I think it is worth a read. We are inevitably moving from a period of minimising risk to acceptable risk, including acceptable death. I have just cop pied a few sections I thought particularity relevant.
.
Acceptable risk
The notion that there is some level of risk that everyone will find acceptable is a
difficult idea to reconcile and yet, without such a baseline, how can it ever be
possible to set guideline values and standards, given that life can never be risk-
free? Since zero risk is completely unachievable, this chapter outlines some of
the problems of achieving a measure of ‘acceptable’ risk by examining a
number of standpoints from which the problem can be approached.
The following is a list of standpoints that could be used as a basis for
determining when a risk is acceptable or, perhaps, tolerable. These will be
explored under broad headings.
A risk is acceptable when:
• it falls below an arbitrary defined probability
• it falls below some level that is already tolerated
• it falls below an arbitrary defined attributable fraction of total
disease burden in the community
• the cost of reducing the risk would exceed the costs saved
• the cost of reducing the risk would exceed the costs saved when the
‘costs of suffering’ are also factored in
• the opportunity costs would be better spent on other, more pressing,
public health problems
• public health professionals say it is acceptable
• the general public say it is acceptable (or more likely, do not say it
is not)
• politicians say it is acceptable.
A further problem is that individuals perceive the nature of risk in
different ways. These differences are often based on deeper societal
processes. One model for describing these differences is cultural theory
(Thompson et al. 1990). Cultural theory divides society along two axes. The
first axis is the influence of the group on patterns of social relationships; the
degree to which people depend on reference to socially accepted peers for
influence. The second axis concerns the degree to which people feel
constrained by externally imposed rules and expectations. Using these two
axes, four types have been described:
• fatalists
• hierarchists
• individualists
• egalitarians.
Each of these four types differs substantially in their approach to risk
(Adams 1997; Langford et al. 1999). For example, hierarchists believe that
managing risk and defining acceptable risk is the responsibility of those in
authority supported by expert advisors. Individualists scorn authority and argue
that decisions about acceptable risk should be left to the individual. Egalitarians
believe that definitions of acceptable risk should be based on consensus that
requires trust and openness. Fatalists see the outcome of risk as a function of
chance and believe they have little control over their lives.
The most vulnerable have been vaccinated and all adults have had the chance to book at least their first jab.
Vaccine rates are slowing because we are running out of people who want it.
The Uk is fortunate it has high vaccine take up but even here a combination of the unvaccinated and the fact vaccines are not 100% effective against the delta variant means that there will be no herd immunity for society anytime soon.
Whether we like it or not societies are opening up their economies. We can disagree about the details of how quick this opening should be but there is only one direction of travel. This will lead to a growth in infections. There is no getting away from that. It is showing already in the numbers in Europe and North America. If flattening the curve is your thing you might want to spread this growth over a longer time. Personally I am ok with getting it over with quicker.
Scotland was at the forefront of this growth in infections. We went from among the lowest rates in Europe to the highest a couple of weeks before the rest of the UK. We are now eleven days past the peak of that wave and numbers of infections have been steadily falling since then. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53511877 Intensive care patient numbers are leveling off and will start falling soon, as will deaths.
There is no reason to think the rest of the Uk will not follow a similar pattern with Europe and America following along behind as the delta variant does its thing of finding the gaps in our vaccine protection.
This is how I see things going.
Imo there should be a lot more honest communication from the government that part of the new normal is going to be that, the same people that were most at risk before we had vaccines are the same ones, most at risk after we have vaccinated those that want it. The vaccines drastically reduce your risk but do not eliminate it so covid illness and death will continue but at a much lower rate.
Will this rate of illness and death be acceptable ?
Few of us are prepared to admit that any death is acceptable, though we accept masses of death from all sorts of causes all the time. We will leave these decisions to the policy makers and pretend it has nothing to do with us.
I found this interesting on acceptable risk, though it is from well before covid https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/iwachap10.pdf I think it is worth a read. We are inevitably moving from a period of minimising risk to acceptable risk, including acceptable death. I have just cop pied a few sections I thought particularity relevant.
.
Acceptable risk
The notion that there is some level of risk that everyone will find acceptable is a
difficult idea to reconcile and yet, without such a baseline, how can it ever be
possible to set guideline values and standards, given that life can never be risk-
free? Since zero risk is completely unachievable, this chapter outlines some of
the problems of achieving a measure of ‘acceptable’ risk by examining a
number of standpoints from which the problem can be approached.
The following is a list of standpoints that could be used as a basis for
determining when a risk is acceptable or, perhaps, tolerable. These will be
explored under broad headings.
A risk is acceptable when:
• it falls below an arbitrary defined probability
• it falls below some level that is already tolerated
• it falls below an arbitrary defined attributable fraction of total
disease burden in the community
• the cost of reducing the risk would exceed the costs saved
• the cost of reducing the risk would exceed the costs saved when the
‘costs of suffering’ are also factored in
• the opportunity costs would be better spent on other, more pressing,
public health problems
• public health professionals say it is acceptable
• the general public say it is acceptable (or more likely, do not say it
is not)
• politicians say it is acceptable.
A further problem is that individuals perceive the nature of risk in
different ways. These differences are often based on deeper societal
processes. One model for describing these differences is cultural theory
(Thompson et al. 1990). Cultural theory divides society along two axes. The
first axis is the influence of the group on patterns of social relationships; the
degree to which people depend on reference to socially accepted peers for
influence. The second axis concerns the degree to which people feel
constrained by externally imposed rules and expectations. Using these two
axes, four types have been described:
• fatalists
• hierarchists
• individualists
• egalitarians.
Each of these four types differs substantially in their approach to risk
(Adams 1997; Langford et al. 1999). For example, hierarchists believe that
managing risk and defining acceptable risk is the responsibility of those in
authority supported by expert advisors. Individualists scorn authority and argue
that decisions about acceptable risk should be left to the individual. Egalitarians
believe that definitions of acceptable risk should be based on consensus that
requires trust and openness. Fatalists see the outcome of risk as a function of
chance and believe they have little control over their lives.
