The UK was very slow in doing anything about India because they were getting vaccine shipments from there and didn’t want to p1ss off their govt. I think it was only when the vaccine shipments stopped that India went on the red list. It’s a dreadful decision to have to make, and this is why our political leaders are a highly paid cream of the intellectual elite 
I think Kissinger, with the luxury of not being a politician, had a better word for it… although realpolitik is considerably older than even him.
The UK govt clearly reckons that these strains cannot be avoided for ever and the best that can be done is to keep them at a low level for many months (which is how “exponential” growth works, contrary to what most people think it means) and in the meantime work on vaccine mk 2. The UK has a vast Indian population and thus cultural connections (a legacy of its colonial past) so a lot of travel. Australia and NZ are at the “end of the world” and they are able to shut themselves off, but the UK can’t.
Also AFAIK there is no data on whether the current vaccines do or don’t work in the Indian strain. They well might, and even a 50% effect will prevent hospitals getting full.
This study makes news in our press here:
https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/files/coronavirus/ciscommunityvaccinationpaper20210417complete.pdf
local copy
The main bit of interest being that the study confirms that it is still likely that people will get infected and be able to spread the virus after being vaccined. Hence, a complete return to status before Covid is an illusion: Social distancing and masks will become a fact of life by the looks of it. Whether that will change when “enough” people are vaccined whatever that means, remains to be seen. 30% non vaccined folks will still be enough to overwhelm health institutions….
IMHO it also makes a clear case for keeping the testing regime for travellers for the forseeable future.
While some infections, particularly those with Ct≥30, could represent historical infections contracted prior to vaccination, given the timescales and prior negatives post vaccination, some will
13 undoubtedly reflect new infections after vaccination. Together with other evidence, this suggests that vaccination does not completely prevent infection following virus exposure, yet minimises progression to more severe infection14. The fact that vaccinated individuals can still be infected, even if predominantly with lower viral burden/asymptomatic infections, means that onwards transmission remains a possibility, albeit at lower efficiency35. Maintaining measures such a social distancing may therefore still be needed to control virus spread until enough of the population is vaccinated
30% non vaccined folks will still be enough to overwhelm health institutions….
Negative; both the AZ and PF vaccines offer 100% protection from hospitalisation.
From a public policy perspective this is sufficient, because it reduces it from killing roughly 1% of the population to something very much lower and probably less serious than the normal flu.
The potential problem is new strains, which seem to achieve 1% mortality all over again but are to varying extents vaccine resistant. None of them seems to be totally or even substantially resistant though. Depending on how long the immunity lasts (no good data on that yet) a regular re-vaccination will be needed, partly to deal with new strains which would otherwise continue to create havoc by killing ~1% of the population…
There is a local cafe here run by two women who totally refuse to believe in getting vaccinated. A retail facing position… even from a totally selfish perspective and to hell with anybody else I would get myself vacced ASAP.
it also makes a clear case for keeping the testing regime for travellers for the forseeable future.
Yes, or vaccine certificates. The report does state that virus shedding is greatly reduced.
I find your conclusion to be at odds with that of the study authors and my own. If the ultimate goal of social distancing measures is to prevent overwhelming of the healthcare sector, then the vaccine doesn’t have to prevent all infections/transmissions (though the data shows it does in the large majority of cases). If severe infection is prevented almost universally, then the justification for large-scale measures such as lockdowns are no longer given and any remaining severe cases are part If the allgemeine Lebensrisiken (universal risks of life), just like with Influenza (which a large number of individuals do not choose to get vaccinated against despite a vaccine being available which also offers “only” partial protection from infection but nearly full protection from severe disease)
EDIT: My post was in response to @Mooney_Driver, Peter answered first though.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
guess how many will prefer Sputnik if given the choice.
Sputnik: 10% anti viral immune stuff, 90% Vodka. My kind of vaccine, I hope I get it 
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Hence, a complete return to status before Covid is an illusion
We will see.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Social distancing and masks will become a fact of life by the looks of it
That would be insane, much like wearing a helmet and high viz jacket when walking to the grocery. This is up to us to make sure doesn’t happen. Even now, I can walk into every shop here, every restaurant, without a mask. And this is done even though AZ has been put on the shelves. And we have a lower spread of the virus than anywhere else in Europe.
Right now, I’m just enjoying life, waiting for my Vodka shot The club has invited to fly over the city and surroundings this Constitution day, same as last year. May 17, just hope the weather holds.
I find myself agreeing with LeSving here. Once Covid-19 is under control, social distancing should be a thing of the past, even if individuals remain at risk. It cannot be regarded as a goal for society to limit any and all risks to zero or even the lowest possible value at all time. There needs to be a careful evaluation of different kinds of risk. Social isolation, lack of education, degradation of culture, sports, the economy etc. are all real and valid “risks” as well. While I, as a medical doctor, obviously place a very high value on life and an intact health, I do regard these other values as important too and am in favour of balacing risks appropriately.
I am quite honestly sick of social distancing and I never in my life was a big fan of crowds or generally not someone who depends on constant social interaction to feel good. Personally, having been vaccinated over two months ago and thus extremely well protected, I only maintain social distancing at all because I’m a law-abiding citizen and see myself as a role-model due to being a doctor, but the moment I’m legally allowed to forgo social distancing, I will…
Is there data on the effectiveness and on side effects of Sputnik?
Peter wrote:
Is there data on the effectiveness and on side effects of Sputnik?
The data I’ve seen so far puts it’s effectiveness in the >90% ballpark comparable to BioNTech or Moderna and better than AZ which uses the same technology, but there’s a degree of doubt about the veracity of the Russian data.
