covid-19

[RandBlade]

Is it possible that governments will shift out of lockdowns early without adequate data to support such a decision? Certainly, I have seen the reverse also happen, where authorities have been slow to reimpose restrictions even if the data clearly indicate it would be a good idea (and match the criteria for earlier periods of lockdown that were developed for lifting restrictions in the spring/summer). That doesn't mean that it will actually be a good idea.

There are so many unknowns right now about wide distribution of these vaccines - will population scale numbers match promising results from the trial? Will the very old/comorbid population in care settings tolerate the vaccine? For that matter, how will you distribute such vaccines in care homes given the handling requirements? I find it highly unlikely that any government will have a substantial handle on this until the spring, and even then it will be precarious. A week or two earlier or later on regulatory approval is largely irrelevant. The government may decide to ease lockdowns because of political considerations, but the data isn't likely to start looking better until March at the earliest.

I also want to challenge your assertion that this is 'like the flu'. About half of the deaths in the US have not been from the long term care population; Covid has higher disease severity and mortality than influenza for pretty much everyone but young kids. If you get more widespread transmission among ostensibly healthy but unvaccinated populations, you're still going to be stressing the healthcare system to the breaking point... and probably killing a lot of people unnecessarily. The much smarter option is to be driven by the data - on hospitalizations, deaths, and positivity rates - in order to determine when it is safe to start easing restrictions.

To be clear with the "like the flu" remark that was strictly for young healthy adults.

This virus is pernicious in part because it is bloody brutal on a large segment of society while being relatively inconsequential (long COVID aside) in the main part for others who can thus act as carriers and spread it on.

The first phase of the UKs vaccination programme is to vaccinate in stages at risk groups down to the over 50s (as well as the clinically vulnerable under 50s). So far in the UK over 99% of deaths during the pandemic have come from these groups. Less than 1% of deaths come from healthy under 50s.

[wiggin]

To be clear with the "like the flu" remark that was strictly for young healthy adults.

This virus is pernicious in part because it is bloody brutal on a large segment of society while being relatively inconsequential (long COVID aside) in the main part for others who can thus act as carriers and spread it on.

This is not true. Disease severity and mortality (and long term effects) are substantially more severe at all age groups. Sure, it's really bad for the very old, but it is worse than typical influenza infections. We do not want to have it running unchecked among the 'healthy' population.

The first phase of the UKs vaccination programme is to vaccinate in stages at risk groups down to the over 50s (as well as the clinically vulnerable under 50s). So far in the UK over 99% of deaths during the pandemic have come from these groups. Less than 1% of deaths come from healthy under 50s.

Certainly this is wise; I don't expect to be able to receive a vaccination until spring or summer. But that doesn't mean we should be okay with widespread infection among the under 50s.