The UK does not require teachers or anyone else in schools to be vaccinated, and it's not clear that teachers could be required to vaccinate unless a) their union agreed to contracts being modified accordingly or b) a new contract was being offered (which in teaching cannot be a simple take-it-or-leave-it deal; it has to be negotiated with the teaching unions). Schools can, however, require prospective teachers (and other prospective staff) to vaccinate or supply a medical exemption before employing them. I don't know of any school using this power - yet. With the exception of care home staff, this is the same situation for every employer in the UK; compelling vaccination requires either the offer of a new contract to existing employees (in a permissible manner, which at minimum means it can't be used as a means of constructive dismissal), or it needs to be part of the hiring process for a new employee (in which case, the only restriction is that verifiable medical waivers cannot be unreasonably refused).

The UK allows anyone who's had a COVID positive result to be treated as if vaccinated for domestic purposes for 180 days following the initial positive test. However, they cannot begin to use it until they have completed their requisite period of isolation. There is no antibody test that can be taken to extend it past that point, or indeed to prove one is/isn't immune for the entire 180 days. Vaccination is permanently valid and anyone who has neither recovered from the virus nor vaccinated against it can get a test and be treated as if vaccinated for 48 hours. None of these pathways allow exemption from masking in situations where it is demanded (although there are relatively few scenarios where masking is now required by the government), and indeed universities are not allowed to mandate any of these measures (though they can require a testing regime - weekly with two initial tests 3 days apart appears to be typical for students with face-to-face components to their teaching). While anyone is allowed to go abroad, other countries do not recognise the NHS COVID App. Most countries have requisite testing procedures in their own countries, and the UK requires testing before leaving (for all countries, barring exceptional circumstances such as prisoners being extradited) and upon return (most countries - 38 countries or regions currently do not require post-return testing because their COVID rate is so low compared to the UK's.) These are generally purchased as "testing packs" appropriate to the country's perceived COVID risk level, and a test certificate (separate from the test results used for other purposes) must be shown as proof this requirement was met. 80 * 0 = 0 10 * 1 = 10 7 * 2 = 14 3 * 3 = 9 (I'm assuming for the sake of this that the 7% unknown averages 2 people and the 3% were all 3 people; this is likely a higher R than is actually the case) Every 100 people infects 10 + 14 + 9 = 23 people R = 23/100 R = 0.23 That's very good compared to an unvaccinated R of 8 (at least) for Delta.

I suspect if the EU or UK have given Novovax EUA status by that point, the USA might be more inclined to follow suit.

I do not think the BBC's coverage is as good as earlier Olympics. Part of this is because Eurosport now has the pan-European rights and only allows 2 channels to free-to-air channels, However, the commentary has also felt more British-biased and also less informative when discussing British athletes. Live coverage also suffers from not resembling the TV listing very much (equestrianism was frequently missed in favour of tennis, football or tae kwon do, despite the listings saying it was going to be equestrianism). On the other hand, the catch-up streaming option is a lot easier to search through, meaning that if I can avoid discovering who won, watching it after the fact is simple.

That has helped with the very oldest (who were around during or immediately after World War II) - particularly important since people tend to be more careful with health interventions (e.g. vaccines) as they age. There's also been a feeling among the youngest that climate change constitutes a different sort of emergency - at once more diffuse and less likely to get good political leadership than the "mass public traumas" cited. So they're more willing to do the right thing in the face of leaders not doing it, but don't have the previous experience of traumatic events. The group in the middle hasn't felt this way about climate change even if they ideologically believe it's a major issue (they've been more likely to think it's one issue among many, rather than anything qualitatively different) and also don't have experience of mass public trauma (except in London, but there we have the additional complication of unusually low trust). This is the age group where most of the pressure to not be in solidarity has come from. That said, I'd say in the UK that people who are either too poor to afford to take all the protective measures, or who are rich and aiming to please that group specifically, are a bigger factor in non-solidarity than age. It's hard to follow advice if it requires changes that aren't even possible (social distancing has been the biggest problem here - masks were gracelessly tolerated until the leadership said it was considering making them optional).

My area's just posted data up to 23rd July (in other words, it's now a week behind). Highest case count is among 19-30-year-olds. Second-highest? Under-18s. (Though the 50-60 age group ran them close). It's showing peak was likely hit 2-3 days before the report was released (given they've had a week to update the data, I don't think the fall is due to lack of processed tests). Positivity is down to 1.3% (from 2.6% the week before), and I'm not sure how that's possible given the case count peaked so soon before the end of the period evaluated. A sharp reduction of testing looks like the main cause of my area's reduction in cases - only 2 test centres in my area were considered to have done a statistically significant number of tests, with most others doing fewer than 100 in the last fortnight. (In total, there's been just under 9,000 tests this fortnight in a population of 100,000, not counting mandatory health care worker testing). Hospital cases remain steady despite previous weeks having a big rise in cases, which is a good sign, and another good sign is that cases in people above 70 are nearly a thing of the past (there's just over 100 people over 70 with COVID in my area, despite there being many thousands of over-70s living here, whereas for everyone else it about fits the demographic profile of the area). The government of England and Wales has also decided not to make it compulsory to be vaccinated to attend university lectures or enter university halls of residence. (Universities continue to take significant measures to encourage vaccination, up to and including offering vaccination facilities that students and wider community alike can use, but the medically-exempt and the vaccine-hesitant alike no longer need to worry about educations getting derailed). 72% of the UK population is now considered fully vaccinated.

Which one? We have conflicting information about viral loads under Delta in the USA for July-dated research - this one says the loads are very different, but this one says they're practically the same. Since neither of them actually measures transmissibility directly - unlike the study I used - I'm inclined to stick to the older research for transmissibility (since factors other than viral load may affect transmissibility, e.g. composition of each virus, demographic differences, non-vaccine COVID-relevant behaviour) and instead use the newer studies for understanding of potential changes to viral load (a component of transmissibility). Most places don't have enough eye cover for even their emergency workers, let alone anyone else who might want it. One of the two reasons WHO didn't immediately advise masks for everyone was that there were parts of the world with insufficient face masks or coverings to actually practise the advice. It would be far more extreme for eye protection (since on this logic, glasses and contact lenses would be partial protection at best).

Part of the reason the media isn't communicating what you want it to communicate is because vaccinated people's infections spread around 50% less than unvaccinated people's infections.

Yes. It's difficult for them to get much of anything done.

Over the period 1 February - 21 June, 733 (63%) people were hospitalised having had no vaccine 74 (6.4%) were less than 21 days after their first dose (for people having 2 doses, which is nearly all of them) 162 (13.9%) had had their first dose more than 21 days previously but not had dose #2 (and needed it) 173 (14.8%) had received both doses (any length of time prior). Proportions during this time changed dramatically, but the 14.8% is likely to have come out of 40-50% of the population, whereas the 63% came out of 20-30% of the population. So vaccines are quite protective.

There's about 10,000 athletes on site, so if 80% are vaccinated, there's still around 2,000 unvaccinated athletes present. It's not clear what level of tracking is being employed at the Games.

193 Olympic participants have tested positive for COVID since the athletes started pre-arrival-journey testing. That's a positivity rate of about 1.25% so far, although it is much, much lower among the athletes (20 cases for around 10,000 athletes) than among the others (173 cases, including 2 in hospital, among 6000 or so people, which is... ...pretty worrying, come to think of it).

I mean masking in contexts where masking has made sense for you up to this point (I mean prior to events of the last week or so, where I think you decided to be a bit stricter in the measures you were taking). A good ear saver does help. Without further information, I would have to consider a tent-based wedding to have restricted airflow, since the roof people are apt to spend a lot of time under is likely to have not only a restriction on air rising, but also at least partial side restriction (either due to the tent design, or through objects usually found at the sides of such spaces such as serving tables). That, plus the matter of toilet provision (not only because they're usually more enclosed, but also for something like the bin transmission case from several months back) and the mix of vaccination statuses (I think at least some of them may not have had the full 3-week wait post-second dose) would have made it a higher-risk setting than is usually the case for outdoors.

It means that the sun is less overhead the longer then match goes on, rather than the opposite. Waiting until 4 pm or 5 pm would have been better, of course, but some of these players can make a match last a very long time... There have been a lot of weird problems with the implementation of this particular Games, and I'm worried it's going to be worse for the Paralympics. Simone's withdrawal from the gymnastics was one she handled very well. She could have stayed in (and risked injuring herself), but decided to do what was right for her health (and, in the case of the team event, what was right for her team's best chances of a medal given the circumstances). She could probably have cited the ankle and avoided the complainers, but she decided to tell the whole truth. That's brave of her, and deserves our respect. That Simone didn't feel she was more than her accomplishments before makes sense given she's a perfectionist - especially given her earlier experiences of Nasser and co. refusing to see the athletes under their care as people.

It appears that nightclubs in the UK will now allow people to enter using test results after September despite previously advertising this would not be possible. An NHS COVID pass would be required, meaning nightclubs will require one of the following: - full vaccination with a UK-approved vaccine + 2 weeks' wait + either NHS Passport app confirmation or a letter from the NHS confirming vaccination completion (this one doesn't expire) - negative (any type) test + NHS Passport app confirmation (this expires after 48 hours) - positive PCR test + completion of legal self-isolation requirement (10 days unless otherwise specified) + NHS Passport app confirmation (I assume this is due to antibodies, though no antibody test is required, expected or in any way useful for securing a NHS COVID pass. It expires after 180 days/almost 6 months). The first of these is the only one which allows international travel, but domestic venues that requires proof of COVID-free status are likely to accept any of the three, since they're to ask for a pass rather than a specific method of passing. Links to how this is done in the various parts of the UK here. If you got your vaccine abroad and it's not UK-approved (for example, it's the two-dose Janssen or Novovax), it's not clear exactly how the proof system will work (the NHS Covid app for use with a test result requires an NHS number - though you don't have to know what that number is - and tourists wouldn't have a NHS number unless they'd needed NHS care at some point). I do not expect to need a vaccination letter in the near future, but have ordered one anyway (free of charge, online-only - how this will work for the 20% with no internet is anyone's guess) because I completed my COVID vaccination course more than 2 weeks ago. In other news, a trust in Northern Ireland has cancelled some operations due to COVID-related staff shortages. 500 staff currently off work either with COVID or isolating due to close contact with people who have COVID. This is despite some healthcare workers now being exempt from having to self-isolate if they are informed a close contact has COVID if they themselves test negative. Currently, 10 COVID patients total in the community are in intensive care - it's not clear what that Trust's total ICU capacity is. Also note that other elective surgeries in the same Trust are continuing as usual, which indicates it's a specialty-specific problem at the moment. The Isle of Man has a test shortage due to high numbers of cases and suspected cases, and has temporarily banned nursing home visits. On the other hand, a Northern Ireland study has shown that mental health is now back to where it was pre-pandemic, despite many restrictions still being in place there (unlike England). This shows that people do, to some degree, get used to restrictions - provided they can see that one day fairly soon, they are going to be gone.

As far as I know, people who have been doing the sort of precautions you've been doing so far haven't been catching COVID-19 from direct outdoor encounters in "proper" outdoor spaces (as distinct from places with restricted airflow like sitting in stadium stands) - be it Delta or any other variant.

It definitely can spread, though as far as I know the preventative measures that worked for other variants of COVID outdoor transmission prevention also work for Delta. There was definitely spread of Delta at the Euro 2020 quarter-final between England and Scotland (over 300 known direct cases, against a crowd of below 10,000), although this was a roofed stadium rather than a typical outdoor scenario. I know of a few cases where it spread outdoors conventionally, but these tended to be more direct encounters with relatively easy-to-protect against causes: pulling someone's bin without washing hands afterwards (hand-washing after touching a dirty bin has always been good advice), spending an hour talking to a friend while neither of you is masked (wear a mask for extended conversations, take a step backwards or keep conversations short), outdoor weddings where inhibitions dropped and likely led to precautions also dropping (if you go to a wedding, leave before that stage of proceedings happens)...

There's also the matter of information control. It's hard to gauge how the fidelity of the Chinese data at this point in the pandemic compares to the fidelity of data from other countries, and it would probably take information from people who have knowledge of the current Chinese collection methods (as distinct from those earlier in the pandemic) to be sure. Bear in mind England has changed its collection rules at least 6 times in the past 18 months, some of which made a big difference to the results. Edited to add: Despite all of the above, China has confirmed it has problems in several different provinces, partly due to an outbreak at one of its airports and partly due to refugees from Myanmar who are accidentally bringing the virus with them. I'd suggest that the relative non-efficacy of the Chinese vaccines compared to others is why a larger proportion of their outbreaks involve vaccinated people than happens in the USA or UK.

92% of people in the UK have antibodies for COVID. There are still a lot of cases there, although these are declining in most areas (not my local area though) this week.

Confirmed cases have doubled in my area over the past 7 days. Deaths are slightly up, but not by a statistically significant amount (which isn't surprising as hospitalisations weren't up by much on the last fortnightly dashboard either, and most COVID deaths are preceded by hospital visits). Unfortunately I will need to wait until next week's full dashboard to know what's happened to hospitalisations and testing in my area. This is particularly interesting as it's come from the same set of data that says the UK overall is having a reduction in cases and deaths. On the other hand, the day of re-opening had the lowest amount of people in town that anyone I spoke to in shops could remember since last lockdown. (I was only there myself because I unexpectedly needed to go to the library, though once I realised town centre was practically deserted, I took the opportunity to do a full shopping trip). I suspect the case increase is people importing it from other events such as the Euro 2020 football.

I would definitely wear a mask to an indoor party, but consider it rude to ask about other people's vaccination status before doing so.

Question makes sense. Hard to answer as there are few apples-to-apples comparisons. It has 66% effectiveness at preventing infection (similar to 1 dose of mRNA but better than 1 dose of OxfordAstrazeneca or Novovax), but there were some odd gaps in the study where this figure was done.

@Melissa Louise, if neither of the people you are advising has any pre-existing conditions, I'd advise them to go with OxfordAstrazeneca because it's available already and it is providing good protection (albeit less good than Pfizer). A situation of having to miss a vaccine appointment due to catching COVID would not be good. Potentially connected to different vaccine mix (OxfordAstrazeneca produces fewer antibodies in the first place and thus the drop-off may be more problematic for it than Pfizer. I wouldn't worry about the demonstrated Pfizer drop-off since its Week 10 figure is still higher than OxfordAstrazeneca's sweet spot antibody count... ...but Pfizer's recommending boosters be developed, so there may be an element of relaying manufacturer concerns in the hope of getting booster testing approved sooner),

This is awful. For Paralympians, having medical support is as important as having coaching support. This sort of decision will distort the Paralympics, and makes me wonder if Japan is capable of hosting it at all. I did. It was good to see most of the athletes taking masking seriously. Tajikstan and Krygystan (who were largely maskless) not so much 😞 The athletes are supposed to wear masks whenever not eating, drinking, sleeping or competing/training per Games rules, so it will be interesting to see if any disciplinary consequences follow. Though the team that sent a volunteer to carry in their flag and kept their athletes in the village may well have had the wisest idea. Britain only had 22 of its athletes in the parade, which suggests they are also taking things cautiously. There was some sort of protest shortly before the opening ceremony. German cyclist Simon Geschke has testest positive for COVID-19 in the last few hours, unfortunately. (Even so, I think the British athletes are safer in the Olympic village than back home, because in England an estimated 1 in 75 people has COVID, and for Scotland it is estimated at 1 in 80).

I've seen three categories of people who haven't all got the vaccine: 1) Those who can't. There's an unusually high number of people in my circle who are medically contraindicated - whether for any EUA medicine because they've had so many bad reactions to so many other medicines, for any vaccine because their immune systems treat the vaccine as if it was the real thing and they are at serious risk of illness or for anything involving needles due to extreme phobia/anxiety. They've all been locked down since last March, and none are the sort of people who'd encourage anyone with an option to follow their lead. These are not the people OP had in mind. 2) Vaccine-hesitant people. They need more information. For a lot of them, this translated to something like, "they needed someone whose medical opinion they respected to sit with them, preferably with a mug of coffee/tea each, and walk them through their personal concerns". Several of these people looked like they would be permanently anti-vax, but after their fears were assuaged they booked to get their vaccines happily. 3) I've encountered one person face-to-face who actually believes the vaccine is evil (though they think COVID is real enough and, interestingly, wears a mask indoors even if entertaining visitors at home). It's hard to know if this is someone who's really in category 2), but none of the hesitant people of my acquaintance were attributing intent to the vaccine (they have previously thought it was a bad idea, but not said anything that wasn't at least plausible for someone with limited access to health information to believe).