first dose 92%, secong dose 83%
Continued good news.
If the community spread R0 is < 2 and not R0 > 12 then why do you need a vaccination rate of 90%?
This has been basic public health science for many decades based on some very basic mathematics. Its in all the textbooks.
If the efficacy of the vaccines is 90%+ the why do you need a vaccination rate of 90% with community spread R0 < 2?
This is very basic immunology. Its in all the textbooks.
The community protection rate of a vaccination rate of 50% is exactly the same as with 90% when R0 < 2. This is basic public health science for many decades based on some very basic mathematics. Its in all the textbooks.
So why use vaccines types that have either never gained regulatory approval due to safety concerns or only on a single occasion for limited use when most of the worlds (non western) population is being given a traditional vaccine type that has been used safely for generations.
So whatever way you look at it the current government vaccination program is based on one or more very big lies.
Because of something called science. Its in all the textbooks.
The only reason for a very high vaccination rate is the vaccines used dont work very well. Hardly surprising, if you read the published literature.
@jmc A medicine that works for some people but not everybody might offer best results when a lot of people have it. It might be a subtle calculation to know for sure, and that's why we use a panel of exports, the JCVI, to make that choice, and why we we studiously ignore any anti-vaxxers, capisci?
Where did you get your numbers for R0 from?
Since there is good evidence of the high vaccine efficacy and the basic maths is quite simple, then it suggests that your assertion of <2 might be wrong.
BTW, what can be observed now is no longer the pure behaviour of the virus, it is the behaviour of the virus within an increasingly protected population. So if R0 drops low, it doesn't necessarily mean it is a weedy virus.
Are these percentages still based on estimates of the population from the 2011 census or are they using the population data from the recent census?
I have a hunch the ONS have used the most recent measure of population.
Makes a mockery of the supposed urgent need for vaccine passports. How could the NHS possibly now not cope with %s like that having been jabbed whether once twice or shortly three times?
Or have we moved on from saving the NHS to something else?
OK, since you asked:the NHS cannot possibly cope with a pre covid average winter. we are, to put it bluntly, far too poor to afford a world class health system. Since we manufacture very little, import everything, an gererate very little value in transactions. Hence, without an influx of cheap workers from the outside world, there is insufficient wealth in the UK to affort a good service. That is why there is and always ahall be a battle to find an easy fix.
Let's be honest, the NHS currently dictates whether businesses are allowed to trade and whether law abiding citizens are confined to their houses or not.
Being one of the biggest employers in the world providing health care for 1% of the worlds population smacks of inefficiency to me.
The waste perfectly demonstrated every financial year by departments frantically throwing perfectly workable equipment away and purchasing new so that they do not come in under budget.
If exploiting cheap labour is the only way to afford it, it isn't fit for purpose and should be sold off. The NHS has become a religion or cult perfectly demonstrated by the public clapping it outside their homes as if it is an all seeing, all knowing heavenly entity.
Hi
@crazy-horse the NHS dictates whether businesses are allowed to trade and whether law abiding citizens are confined to their houses.
That's not right, since it is mostly down to Witty and Vallance, if any people dictate things, but they do regard the NHS as a vitally important factor in their choices. So your view makes sense, but is only part of the story. OK? It is right to support the health system, for any nation.
@crazy-horse Being one of the biggest employers in the world providing health care for 1% of the world's population smacks of inefficiency.
Please elaborate on why, any single group that dealt with health care for 1% of the world's population would need to be a very large group.Other countries organise their systems differently, so they may have multiple employers,hence there may or may not be net efficiencies in doing so, and again your view is only part of the story. OK? It is the prevailing view that the NHS is efficient.
@crazy-horse The waste perfectly demonstrated every financial year by departments frantically throwing perfectly workable equipment away and purchasing new so that they do not come in under budget.
Perhaps, but I haven't seen that demo. Have you? The MRI scanner at my hospital is as old as the hills, like the x-ray equipment.
@crazy-horse If exploiting cheap labour is the only way to afford it, it isn't fit for purpose and should be sold off. The NHS has become a religion or cult perfectly demonstrated by the public clapping it outside their homes.
In that paragraph, perhaps, is your biggest error : exploiting cheap labour is excellent business practise. In what way is it not fit for purpose to exploit cheap labour? Explain why you would say that.
Unless they did so, it could not be sold off since it would not be worth anything to anybody. Again, your views are incomplete, partial, un-thought through. It is efficient to exploit cheap labour, doing so is called 'doing business'. I agree that it is silly to clap a business for doing business, and the cultishness of it is silly.But the left feel obliged to cultify it, since Labour invented it. When it was invented, it was absolutely needed in my opinion, since we would otherwise be like the US, which is regarded as inefficient and stands as 19th most efficient in the world, with the US, for example, in 37th place, behind Dominica and Costa rica and above Slovenia.
