There is a flaw in much of the "we can't lock down to save the unvaccinated" chatter at the moment.
If the new variant is as transmissible as we think, there are enough non-vaccinated people to threaten the NHS.
It would be locking down to save the NHS, not the unvaccinated.
If the new variant is as transmissible as we think, there are enough non-vaccinated people to threaten the NHS.
It would be locking down to save the NHS, not the unvaccinated.
Here is the SAGE modelling.
For a variant that is 40% or 50% more transmissible, which the Indian variant may be, look at the rise in hospital admissions if we proceed to Step 4 full unlocking (yellow and blue lines)
They're in the tens of thousands. Similar levels to before.
For a variant that is 40% or 50% more transmissible, which the Indian variant may be, look at the rise in hospital admissions if we proceed to Step 4 full unlocking (yellow and blue lines)
They're in the tens of thousands. Similar levels to before.
The answer is surge testing to suppress it, and obviously more vaccinations. But the more transmissible the variant, the higher the herd immunity threshold.
So it is not as simple as just saying "we shouldn't shut down society to save people who won't take the vaccine".
So it is not as simple as just saying "we shouldn't shut down society to save people who won't take the vaccine".
Nor is this an argument for "locking down forever". It is an argument for more vaccinations. We are still only at around 30% of the population fully vaccinated. We need to increase that number to stop the spread.
If it can't spread, it can't make unvaccinated people sick.
If it can't spread, it can't make unvaccinated people sick.
Here is a v good, and more positive outlook though. All of the above is based on the Indian variant being much more transmissible. It may not be.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1394359535754698755?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
