Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

[nightowl]

 

Is there any reason organisations will need to get it from the medical professional? Can't they just ask the individual directly? Isn't that basically how insurance works? Insurers can't obtain private information about members of the public, but if you apply for the policy you will agree to give them access.

Similarly if you are away from an airport, a big sporting event, or a concert, the security staff can't search you. But if you wish to enter, you have agree to have your bag search, walk through a metal detector, or be frisked etc.

So organisations can't compel anyone to reveal their status, but they probably could discriminate against those who don't reveal it.

I think with insurance might be able to ask you to find out for yourself but dont have access themselves but could turn people away.  But is your local pub likely to bother with all that hassle? They will be happy to let people in the door. 

Many businesses spent a small fortune and time making their premises covid safe only to be closed down again on a whim so wont want to spend any time or money on any technology beyond printing out an A4 size QR code and even then that was under protest.

[Arpeggio]

 

Particularly slow learners like yourself would be gone the first night

If both sides actually did that, it would men who shart their knickers at something with a 99.9% survival rate vs men who shart their knickers at something with a 99.9% survival rate.

I think I see your point. There would be no fighting at all, everyone would just do WTF they are told by the great Che Guevera, who has never seen blood in combat, only of those he executed then went full on p*ssy mode when caught by Bolivian soldiers.

[Young Turk]

 

I think with insurance might be able to ask you to find out for yourself but dont have access themselves but could turn people away.  But is your local pub likely to bother with all that hassle? They will be happy to let people in the door. 

A pub doesn't want to turn anyone away. But turning some people away might make others more keen to come. 

A town with at least a handful of pubs might have some allowing anyone and others not. 

 

Many businesses spent a small fortune and time making their premises covid safe only to be closed down again on a whim so wont want to spend any time or money on any technology beyond printing out an A4 size QR code and even then that was under protest.

Do those small businesses know how much they lost from being shut down by the government compared to how much they would have lost due to customers avoiding them? If a lot of cusomters are avoiding them, they may need to find ways to reassure them. 

I've worked for two companies this year, but haven't been in the office since March. I'm not sure if the company I left has started bringing people back, but the company I joined isn't. My local office hasn't been open to anyone. Some of the other offices are open to a very small number of staff (they have to follow instructions in the office aren't allowed to travel to work by public transport). So I assume they won't just re-open even if people don't take the vaccine.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

 

Not every one needs to be jabbed...they just need to get to a certain percentage of the population to stop the virus spreading. There will be lots of anti-vax propaganda; "I've taken it for you, what will you do for me?" type ads all over. Probably written under a picture of a virtuous looking mixed race female nurse with a face mask etc etc. No doubt the opposite dialogue of conspiracy will be under an angry looking older white person...probably male.

Yadda yadda...wash rinse repeat. A social engineers wet dream. Eventually such propaganda will die out once 60% of the population or so have had it; you know, the ones who have to work in an office and who want to go to the pub etc.

I don't trust the speed and economic pressures associated the vaccines associated with this virus. It would be a very brave regulator who didn't approve them.

 

That is my concern.

At one level there is the risk element, though I suspect it is low as the mRNA is designed to do something fairly specific.

Of more concern is the usual business/Government cozying up.

My actual suspicion is that like all past pandemics, you get 2-3 waves of decreasing amplitude and then it is gone. Meanwhile the vaccine doesn't really work quite as well on those it is supposed to help, but so that the National Government can claim success we plough on regardless, whilst helping pump taxpayers money into private interests.

The query I have is that not that long ago they were slapping DNR notices on those in care homes, now (after health workers) they want to prioritise these people?

 

 

[nightowl]

 

A pub doesn't want to turn anyone away. But turning some people away might make others more keen to come. 

A town with at least a handful of pubs might have some allowing anyone and others not. 

Do those small businesses know how much they lost from being shut down by the government compared to how much they would have lost due to customers avoiding them? If a lot of cusomters are avoiding them, they may need to find ways to reassure them. 

I've worked for two companies this year, but haven't been in the office since March. I'm not sure if the company I left has started bringing people back, but the company I joined isn't. My local office hasn't been open to anyone. Some of the other offices are open to a very small number of staff (they have to follow instructions in the office aren't allowed to travel to work by public transport). So I assume they won't just re-open even if people don't take the vaccine.

Its possible pubs favoured by older customers might but those with younger customer base wont want to and their clientele will be disinterested and may be a deterrent for them if the pub tried to enforce it.

Its a HR contractual nightmare for employers if they go the route of compelling it. I guess all businesses in all situations can just say if youre worried about Covid get a jab yourself.  The most with something to worry about are mostly retired anyway.

[pig]

 

Its possible pubs favoured by older customers might but those with younger customer base wont want to and their clientele will be disinterested and may be a deterrent for them if the pub tried to enforce it.

Its a HR contractual nightmare for employers if they go the route of compelling it. I guess all businesses in all situations can just say if youre worried about Covid get a jab yourself.  The most with something to worry about are mostly retired anyway.

No there is a social dimension to contend with - it’s not just about looking after number one. Vaccine is useless if large numbers don’t take it - back to lockdown.

The debate is really interesting around private companies - as they have a duty of care to customers/employees. Conversely on the radio the other day a caller insisted that if a shop restaurant etc insisted on health passports it was tantamount to dictatorship....

[Young Turk]

 

The query I have is that not that long ago they were slapping DNR notices on those in care homes, now (after health workers) they want to prioritise these people?

I thought DNR was a personal choice, or whoever has power of attorney.

There have been bigger shifts in priority (e.g. towards the homeless and prisoners).

[nightowl]

 

No there is a social dimension to contend with - it’s not just about looking after number one. Vaccine is useless if large numbers don’t take it - back to lockdown.

The debate is really interesting around private companies - as they have a duty of care to customers/employees.

The idea its useless if not used in large numbers was mentioned in the press conference today but not explained nor questioned (yet) -  I did raise it here earlier but if the most at risk group are vaccinated that crushes the curve (ie deaths plummit) and that's massive progress and lockdowns redundant.  Im quite sure many an 85 year old will be able to assess their risk level and likely sign up for it without any encouragement.

Indeed companies do have a duty of care but this be reasonably practical and cant be hamstrung by something unrelated to their business activity. 

[Andy T]

Personally I wouldn’t have the vaccine for about 12 months, to be sure there aren’t any serious side affects or other problems in some groups that hasn’t yet appeared in the short period of testing, or at least if there are, an informed decision could be made on the relative risk. 

Yes the vaccines are a great triumph and it needed to happen quickly, but they have to respect individuals rights to make their own decision without being branded selfish or an anti-vaccine extremist. Most of the media especially the bbc increasingly push the message ‘you must have the vaccine, It is totally safe, you won’t be allowed access to places if you don’t have it, anyone with slight doubts are just confused by misinformation’

I’m pretty sure they won’t have much problem with take up though,  people I’ve spoken to accept what the tv tells them and assume it’s zero risk, question nothing and have not thought about it at all. 

[Andy T]

 

No there is a social dimension to contend with - it’s not just about looking after number one. Vaccine is useless if large numbers don’t take it - back to lockdown.

The debate is really interesting around private companies - as they have a duty of care to customers/employees. 

Not true.

It is absolutely about looking after number 1 - because no one else will.

Do the Government care if a percentage of people have complications after having an new unproven mRNA vaccine, no ,because the majority will be ok so job well done. 

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

 

Not true.

It is absolutely about looking after number 1 - because no one else will.

Do the Government care if a percentage of people have complications after having an new unproven mRNA vaccine, no ,because the majority will be ok so job well done. 

It IS true. If they don't get the numbers vaccinated then back to lockdown. The rough formula is: VACCINE EFFICACY % * POPULATION UPTAKE %. If resultant is not greater than 70% for herd immunity then back to lockdown. 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by MonsieurCopperCrutch

[nightowl]

 

Yes the vaccines are a great triumph and it needed to happen quickly, but they have to respect individuals rights to make their own decision without being branded selfish or an anti-vaccine extremist. Most of the media especially the bbc increasingly push the message ‘you must have the vaccine, It is totally safe, you won’t be allowed access to places if you don’t have it, anyone with slight doubts are just confused by misinformation’

I’m pretty sure they won’t have much problem with take up though,  people I’ve spoken to accept what the tv tells them and assume it’s zero risk, question nothing and have not thought about it at all. 

The BBC have been poor over the last 8 months but as legacy media their audience tends to be older anyway and feel reassured by that message. What happens if/when the take up is lower than hoped they might go full on turbo propaganda mode then but wont reach the right people anyway.   I suspect take up with the at-risk groups will be high enough though BBC or not.

Remember the younger generations have been far more affected by lockdowns and may not be in the mood for playing game either! 

 

It IS true. If they don't get the numbers vaccinated then back to lockdown. The rough formula is: VACCINE EFFICACY % * POPULATION UPTAKE %. If resultant is not greater than 70% for herd immunity then back to lockdown.

That's the threat they are using (ie vaccines or lockdown) but the herd immunity issue diminishes the more the most vulnerable are vaccinated -  essentially fit healthy people passing it around without fatalities is only of statistical interest to epidemiologists then.  Operation Moonshot is now redundant but that wont stop some IT companies getting some taxpayers money of course!

[headmelter]

 

It IS true. If they don't get the numbers vaccinated then back to lockdown. The rough formula is: VACCINE EFFICACY % * POPULATION UPTAKE %. If resultant is not greater than 70% for herd immunity then back to lockdown. 

 

Irrespective of any numbers there WILL be a lockdown after Christmas to camouflage the incoming Brexitshambles sh1tst0rm...

[MARTINX9]

Tears of joy as the Government allows husband and wife to hug each other for the first time in eight months.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN28C2HQ

If you had seen that headline a year ago you would have assumed it was a story about a released political prisoner in China or North Korea.

[nightowl]

 

Irrespective of any numbers there WILL be a lockdown after Christmas to camouflage the incoming Brexitshambles sh1tst0rm...

There will be lockdowns (if not in name) as a) the vaccine cant be delivered to all in need instantaneously due to logistics, b) SAGE are simply too invested in the idea.

[Bruce Banner]

A victory for Brexit... Hancock, Mogg et al .

Coronavirus vaccine UK victory is due to quitting EU, says Jacob Rees-Mogg | Politics | News | Express.co.uk

EU urged not to follow UK's 'hasty' vaccine approval lead as minister claims Brexit victory | Politics News | Sky News

United Kingdom touts vaccine approval as victory for Brexit despite US and European role (washingtonexaminer.com)

[headmelter]

 

There will be lockdowns (if not in name) as a) the vaccine cant be delivered to all in need instantaneously due to logistics, b) SAGE are simply too invested in the idea.

Oh OK .... Brexit is going to go without a hitch...🙄

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

 

A victory for Brexit... Hancock, Mogg et al .

Coronavirus vaccine UK victory is due to quitting EU, says Jacob Rees-Mogg | Politics | News | Express.co.uk

EU urged not to follow UK's 'hasty' vaccine approval lead as minister claims Brexit victory | Politics News | Sky News

United Kingdom touts vaccine approval as victory for Brexit despite US and European role (washingtonexaminer.com)

Yes, pretend national glory.

In other news, BoJo offers to walk first across rickety looking rope bridge across Cheddar Gorge.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

 

The BBC have been poor over the last 8 months but as legacy media their audience tends to be older anyway and feel reassured by that message. What happens if/when the take up is lower than hoped they might go full on turbo propaganda mode then but wont reach the right people anyway.   I suspect take up with the at-risk groups will be high enough though BBC or not.

Remember the younger generations have been far more affected by lockdowns and may not be in the mood for playing game either! 

That's the threat they are using (ie vaccines or lockdown) but the herd immunity issue diminishes the more the most vulnerable are vaccinated -  essentially fit healthy people passing it around without fatalities is only of statistical interest to epidemiologists then.  Operation Moonshot is now redundant but that wont stop some IT companies getting some taxpayers money of course!

It's not a threat it's the reality. I thought you bed-wetters wanted no more lockdowns? Well now's your chance to step up to the plate for your country and fellow man, to do the right thing.

But of course you won't because you do not even have the decency to wear a mask when in an enclosed space with others, eh? 

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

 

Irrespective of any numbers there WILL be a lockdown after Christmas to camouflage the incoming Brexitshambles sh1tst0rm...

Well the vaccination program is going to take many months, but I can see another lockdown incoming after crimbo because all the covidiots will fail to follow the guidelines. 

[Confusion of VIs]

 

Personally I wouldn’t have the vaccine for about 12 months, to be sure there aren’t any serious side affects or other problems in some groups that hasn’t yet appeared in the short period of testing, or at least if there are, an informed decision could be made on the relative risk. 

Yes the vaccines are a great triumph and it needed to happen quickly, but they have to respect individuals rights to make their own decision without being branded selfish or an anti-vaccine extremist. Most of the media especially the bbc increasingly push the message ‘you must have the vaccine, It is totally safe, you won’t be allowed access to places if you don’t have it, anyone with slight doubts are just confused by misinformation’

I’m pretty sure they won’t have much problem with take up though,  people I’ve spoken to accept what the tv tells them and assume it’s zero risk, question nothing and have not thought about it at all. 

Seems like a logic fail to me.

In those 12 months you may contract Covid, what guarantee against long term effects does that come with?  We already know it can effect many of the bodies organs and maybe it will prove to have slow burn effects like the Hepatitis viruses. 

Surely any rational balance of probabilities assessment would conclude that catching Covid carries more risk than a vaccine that has been tested in over 70,000 patients without any serious side effects becoming apparent.   

  

[Confusion of VIs]

 

Yes, pretend national glory.

In other news, BoJo offers to walk first across rickety looking rope bridge across Cheddar Gorge.

Quite amusing to watch though

German research, developed by an American company and manufactured in Belgium somehow becomes a great British success story.

NB Only released first here because the UK decided to use EU emergency use regs. not designed for anything that will be used by healthy people, rather than complete a full regulatory assessment. This course of action is open to any member state but was only taken by 2 of the 28, i.e. UK and Hungary.   I wonder why the other 26 decided not to adopt this approach.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Confusion of VIs

[Megadebt]

 

It IS true. If they don't get the numbers vaccinated then back to lockdown. The rough formula is: VACCINE EFFICACY % * POPULATION UPTAKE %. If resultant is not greater than 70% for herd immunity then back to lockdown. 

 

 Maybe not.   Lockdown is primarily to keep the NHS below overload, given that most winters it is running pedal to the metal anyway with very little spare capacity . 

 70% HI threshold was based on a high unmodified R number,  at R=1.5 it is down to 33%

 VE %  x   PU%  minus any herd imunity or pre immunity  and set to an acheivable R value could be a lot less than 70%  maybe half even.  

 Vaccinating the most vulnerable first, who may have a tenfold higher chance of hospitalisation,eliminates them from the equation, in theory.  

  

[Megadebt]

edit....   (I'm new here  😪)

  ...therefore by protecting a small minority of vulnerables it could allow the majority of younger less risk prone adults back into work: vaccinne effectiveness for the economy can have a dissproportionate effect just by selecting the weakest first. Also if they have the highest rate of vaccine related deaths/complications then too bad.

[miguel]

 

Quite amusing to watch though

German research, developed by an American company and manufactured in Belgium somehow becomes a great British success story.

NB Only released first here because the UK decided to use EU emergency use regs. not designed for anything that will be used by healthy people, rather than complete a full regulatory assessment. This course of action is open to any member state but was only taken by 2 of the 28, i.e. UK and Hungary.   I wonder why the other 26 decided not to adopt this approach.

Be prepared for sht loads of this kind of thing. Brexit has to be a great success. 

Dirty Tory scum.