Study: Vax alone won’t contain UK coronavirus infections
Vaccinations alone are unlikely to contain coronavirus infections in the UK, a new study suggests.
However, the research concluded that gradually easing lockdown restrictions and achieving high uptake of COVID-19 jabs can minimise future waves. The University of Warwick’s modelling was performed before early real-world data emerged from studies examining the impact of the vaccine rollout.
Professor Matt Keeling said: “Our modelling suggests that vaccination rollout in adults alone is unlikely to completely stop COVID-19 cases spreading in the UK. We also found that early sudden release of restrictions is likely to lead to a large wave of infection, whereas gradually easing measures over a period of many months could reduce the peak of future waves.”
He added that the huge success of the UK’s vaccine rollout so far – coupled with the government’s gradual roadmap for easing restrictions – are cause for optimism.
“However, some measures, such as test, trace, and isolate, good hand hygiene, mask-wearing in high-risk settings, and tracing from super-spreader events, may also be necessary for some time,” Prof Keeling explained.
The study was published in Lancet Infectious Diseases and modelled the combined vaccine rollout in the UK with different scenarios of relaxing lockdown measures. The goal was to predict the R number, as well as COVID-related deaths and hospital admissions, between January 2021 and January 2024.
In the model, it was assumed vaccine uptake would be 95% in those aged 80 years and older, 85% in those aged 50 to 79 years, and 75% in those aged 18 to 49.
Vaccine protection against symptomatic disease was assumed to be 88% based on phase three trial data from the Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines being administered in the UK.
The findings suggest that, although vaccination can substantially reduce the R rate, it may not be enough to drive R below one without other control measures.
According to researchers, the scale of future waves – and the number of deaths they cause – will be influenced by how early measures are relaxed, the timescale with which they are eased, the vaccine’s level of protection against infection, and uptake of the jabs.
The model estimated that partially easing lockdown restrictions in February 2021 would lead to 131,100 coronavirus deaths in the UK by January 2024.
It was also predicted that partially easing measures in April 2021 would lead to 61,400 deaths by 2024, while starting to remove restrictions in June 2021 would result in 53,900 deaths.
If all lockdown measures are removed in January 2022 – after the rollout of the vaccine has been completed – estimates suggest there will be 21,400 COVID-19 deaths over the two years that follow.
Dr Sam Moore, also from the University of Warwick, added: “Since we conducted this study, new evidence suggests there may be a higher level of protection against severe disease offered by both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines than the level we assumed.
“This may reduce the size of future hospital admissions and deaths we estimated, making future waves more manageable for the health service.”
The model did not account for the emergence of new variants that may cause jabs to offer less protection, nor the effects of waning immunity, which may mean that additional vaccinations are necessary.
Researchers were also unable to ascertain the impact that relaxing specific lockdown measures would have on future cases and deaths.
PSI editors note: bold italic highlights added
See more here: news.sky.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Hubert
| #
Again, another story regarding covid19 and the fact that its real and requires attention, why are you posting contradictive stories, either covid19 is real or it is not, MAKE UP YOUR MIND
Reply
very old white guy
| #
Sars-cov-2 is indeed a coronavirus. It is not however more deadly than the seasonal flu and will eventually join the many viruses that exist in the world that our immune systems fight off on a daily basis. Covid was catchy little name made up for the media to sow irrational fear among the irrational masses. It was, is, and will continue to be a coronavirus, it will mutate as all viruses have. The “vaccines” however, may just kill tens of millions. No need to expand as there have been many articles here describing the science behind them and the lack of human testing.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Hubert,
You asked an honest question — you deserve an honest answer:
IMHO: NOBODY KNOWS (100%) whether there is such a creature as SARS-CoV-2 which may or may not cause or participate in so called CoViD-19. There were many claims of this virus’ “isolation” and even sequencing, yet there was no confirmation of this by any government agency or institute when asked so under the FOIA.
Therefore, again as observed, this website doesn’t confirm nor deny existence of anything which may be real but unconfirmed or imaginary but lied about its supposed existence.
IT IS UP TO THE READER of this website to make up their own mind.
Hint: there has never been any consensus in scientific inquiry. Any claims to otherwise are whether Nonsensus (nothing to do with science) or ugly lie / propaganda (usually supported by corruption).
There is, of course, a logical strategy position: “Is there a Hell as punishment for bad behavior?” I suggest the position to be “yes” on this — as if you’re wrong, it really doesn’t matter…
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Tom O
| #
Hubert, how do you become informed about anything, and I DO mean ANYTHING, if you don’t hear both sides of a story? If you close your mind to one side, you may miss facts that are important. However, until the virus is proved to exist other than by a computer model created by building “something” from bits and pieces, “pro covid fear posts” won’t carry the weight, in my mind, that informational posts that suggest the fear is not real, will. I am still open to the existence of the virus and its disease, but I am not going to soil my underwear over it, nor am I going to treat it as anything other than a moderate issue with relatively low lethality, and shouldn’t be promoted by social distancing and wearing face diapers.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Hubert,
IMHO this site, and its editorial staff, appears to have taken the rational decision that currently not enough is known about this infection, therefore ALL sides of the subject must be aired until the matter is clarified by reliably validated and verified science.
One of the reasons I like this site is that it is not afraid to rock the ‘consensus science’ boat and publish many more controversial ideas and viewpoints that do have some real scientific merit.
As far as I can see the only subject where this site (and the editors) will not hold a discussion, is on the merits and modeled outcomes of the ‘cargo cult’ consensus pseudoscience of anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 climate change or ‘climate crisis’. And IMHO rightly so.
As the saying goes ‘consensus science’ is often not good science and rarely has a consensus.
Reply
Richard
| #
I think you first have to proven the vaccines have any effect. Judging by the NHS vaccine guide – no.
Reply
very old white guy
| #
Nothing can stop or contain the spread of a virus. All the science that has been learned or developed over 200 years shows that, yet we are willing to ignore reality, WHY?
Reply
S.K.
| #
Herd immunity through public transmission suppresses viruses.
Protect ourselves by washing our hands, eating well, getting plenty of sleep, supplementing with vitamin c, d and zinc. A strong immune systems is the solution.
If you are infected with covid19 ask to be treated with Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine or mega doses of vitamin c &d.
Reply
Alan
| #
What does Prof Ferguson think about the quality of this modelling?
Reply
JaKo
| #
As long as no “modeler” is accountable, none should be given any voice in consideration of anything! For a wrong, I mean REALLY WRONG, as in several orders of magnitude wrong, prediction there has never been any consequence for them. And, in case of some “Imperial College” jokers, this wouldn’t be just second or third, but multitude of times really wrong… Why would anyone want to listen to them again?
There was an ultimate system of accountability (a really great model, if you will) in Imperial China — the top doctor had a top remuneration of all court officials, but his head was chopped if the emperor fell ill. A corollary comes to mind — certain professors could provide at most some janitorial services in the departments they ridiculed by their grossly failed predictions.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Modern day modelling
http://www.drug-dissolution-testing.com/?p=3738
Reply
Doug Harrison
| #
WOW! How encouraging this is. So many well stated positions in answer to a question posed by someone who has obviously not been to this site often. Hubert, the very purpose of science is to always have doubt that what you think you know may be, at least to some degree, wrong.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Refreshing to see so many of our regular readers and commentators pitching in to clarify what our mission really is: to engage in open discussion and debate over the deliberate corruption of science. That we post articles/news stories we may not always agree with is to help inform the wider debate. No one has all the answers and we are all in various different stages of being ‘awake’. Collectively, we should all be in the pursuit of truth, although that may ultimately prove to be an impossible goal to reach.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
“The model estimated that partially easing lockdown restrictions in February 2021 would lead to 131,100 coronavirus deaths in the UK by January 2024.”
For many decades, we were very aware that there is a flu season, which starts in Sept-Oct and goes until Mar-April. Elderly with critical issues indeed can catch a flu bug any time of year, but most frequently during the flu season.
Now, suddenly, they ignore flu season patterns completely, pretend the current flu season is a surge of wave of infection, and keep the death tallies going year after year. Doing so means that it is hard to compare one flu season with the next and also is clearly designed to alarm people.
Flu season viruses come and go, being new strains by the next flu season as they move around the world (strains have been renamed as variants, just was the flu season has been renamed Covid-19). They are predicting 131,000 deaths over a three-year period if they let up restrictions? That makes not sense.
Also, just like the computer climate models, the virus models truly suck.
Reply