Coronavirus Thread

[DennisNedry]

1 hour ago, HankMarvin said:

Even if you don’t count the the other 11 deaths after one vaccine.

 

That’s 26 deaths from 4087 double vaccine hospitalisations   
as opposed to 34 from 35521

 

This is about the Delta variant which we are told "It is a variant that is more easily transmissible, potentially deadlier and particularly dangerous for young people." 

 

so given your point that the unvaccinated are overwhelmingly  under 30 shouldn’t there be more deaths in that category.

There's a lot of nuances here though. Take for example, of the 275 fully vaccinated people who made A&E visits (and subsequent 124 admitted overnight), 26 died. That's almost 10%, a very high percentage. I'd guess from that data that a lot of these people were either very old, frail or severely ill with other diseases. The vaccines aren't going to work miracles for these people unfortunately.

 

The under 30s are still going be largely fine even when contracting the Delta variant. Very very few will die. You're also going to be picking up a whole load of asymptomatic cases in younger people too as they get routinely tested for work, school etc. 

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, DennisNedry said:

There's a lot of nuances here though. Take for example, of the 275 fully vaccinated people who made A&E visits (and subsequent 124 admitted overnight), 26 died. That's almost 10%, a very high percentage. I'd guess from that data that a lot of these people were either very old, frail or severely ill with other diseases. The vaccines aren't going to work miracles for these people unfortunately.

 

The under 30s are still going be largely fine even when contracting the Delta variant. Very very few will die. You're also going to be picking up a whole load of asymptomatic cases in younger people too as they get routinely tested for work, school etc. 

Probably worth adding that a proportion of the double-vaccinated are going to be in highly vulnerable groups such as immunosuppressed cancer patients, for whom I understand the vaccines are not so effective.

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

Probably worth adding that a proportion of the double-vaccinated are going to be in highly vulnerable groups such as immunosuppressed cancer patients, for whom I understand the vaccines are not so effective.

For people whose immune system does not work, the vaccine is useless.  The vaccine doesn't replace any of the body's systems, it just provides the tools for the immune system to do its job better. 

 

If your old and/or sick, your immune system tends to work less well.  If you're immunosuppressed, it doesn't work at all.

[dsr-burnley]

13 hours ago, st albans fox said:

our govt have screwed up a lot on this but they are supposed to protect us from harm - so them trying to ensure a variant doesn’t become established which will evade current vaccine efficacy is not unreasonable 

 

they are treading a line between ‘restrictions’ and ‘freedom’

How significant is the risk of a variant being resistant to vaccines?  They've found two or three thousand variants so far, and none of them have been able to evade the vaccines.  Why would the next one be different?

[st albans fox]

38 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

How significant is the risk of a variant being resistant to vaccines?  They've found two or three thousand variants so far, and none of them have been able to evade the vaccines.  Why would the next one be different?

It v likely won’t be but they are still sh1t scared it could be ……..

[dsr-burnley]

12 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

It v likely won’t be but they are still [deleted] scared it could be ……..

Which begs the next question, if the virus is running rampant around the unvaccinated world, how much difference does it make if vaccinated Britain continues to restrict movement?  Can we improve the chances of not getting a lethal variant by as much as 0.01%, or in 1 10,000?  I doubt it.

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

Which begs the next question, if the virus is running rampant around the unvaccinated world, how much difference does it make if vaccinated Britain continues to restrict movement?  Can we improve the chances of not getting a lethal variant by as much as 0.01%, or in 1 10,000?  I doubt it.

I think the consideration in this (likely) scenario is one of time. As and when a variant of particular concern emerges - perhaps one that evades vaccines to enough of an extent, I think the theory would be that it can’t be entirely stopped but we might be able to slow its progress enough so that we can develop and send out a round of booster vaccinations against it before it can properly take hold. In other words, we play the percentages rather than attempting zero Covid.

 

But that’s one possibility. Ultimately it will be up to Sage to advise on the matter and for the government to weigh up the risks. And with this government I’d expect them to open up and chance it.

[fox_favourite]

On 18/06/2021 at 23:36, dsr-burnley said:

Don't schools, colleges and universities insist that their students get tested twice a day?  

Twice a week, not twice a day. I assume this is a typo. Staff are tested twice a week as well with lateral flows. 

[Soup]

56 minutes ago, fox_favourite said:

Twice a week, not twice a day. I assume this is a typo. Staff are tested twice a week as well with lateral flows. 

My other half works in a school and they are asked to test twice a week, however they don't have too and lots don't bother at all

Edited 20 June 2021 by Soup

[Buce]

9 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

How significant is the risk of a variant being resistant to vaccines?  They've found two or three thousand variants so far, and none of them have been able to evade the vaccines.  Why would the next one be different?

 

Because that's the nature of evolution.

[Izzy]

10 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

For people whose immune system does not work, the vaccine is useless.  The vaccine doesn't replace any of the body's systems, it just provides the tools for the immune system to do its job better. 

 

If your old and/or sick, your immune system tends to work less well.  If you're immunosuppressed, it doesn't work at all.

Is that right Doctor?

I’m in the vulnerable group and had my vacations months ago. I take immunosuppressant injections every other week and was told the COVID vaccine would protect me.

Are you now telling me it’s a waste of time?

[Soup]

33 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Because that's the nature of evolution.

Doesn't our natural immunity evolve as well?  

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Soup said:

Doesn't our natural immunity evolve as well?  

 

Yes, but only for the surviviors; as a species it would evolve but at the cost of (insert number) lives.

Edited 20 June 2021 by Buce

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Is that right Doctor?

I’m in the vulnerable group and had my vacations months ago. I take immunosuppressant injections every other week and was told the COVID vaccine would protect me.

Are you now telling me it’s a waste of time?

From what I can tell, some vaccines work for immunocompromised people, and some don't. I would assume the people handling your vaccination were competent enough to give you one of the former.

 

Just now, Soup said:

Doesn't our natural immunity evolve as well?  

It does. The entirety of the existence of life has been an arms race of that type.

 

The problem arises when the development of such immunity comes at a vast cost in terms of material and lives - and some diseases, like smallpox, cholera and the like, we never really developed an immunity to until vaccines were developed for them.

[Soup]

Just now, Buce said:

 

Yes, but only for the surviviors; as a species it would evolve but at the cost of (insert number) lives.

So when you say survivors you mean most people?

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Soup said:

So when you say survivors you mean most people?

 

No, I mean there is no way of knowing.

 

But if a virus has evolved to evade the vaccine (which was the hypothetical situation discussed) it would likely be virulent and with a high casualty rate.

[Soup]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The problem arises when the development of such immunity comes at a vast cost in terms of material and lives - and some diseases, like smallpox, cholera and the like, we never really developed an immunity to until vaccines were developed for them.

Ok i see your point but surely we can compare this with smallpox and cholera. Wasn't the death rate of those huge? 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Soup said:

Ok i see your point but surely we can compare this with smallpox and cholera. Wasn't the death rate of those huge? 

Yep, and had this hit during the time period where those were big problems, given how much less we knew about sanitation and healthcare, it may well have had a similar one.

 

But in any case, the point is that letting this run its course and letting the development of our natural immunity deal with it would in all likelihood be extraordinarily costly, even though it would in the end most likely be successful. Why pay that price when the very best product of our own evolution is the way we have developed knowledge and technology to defend ourselves against such natural threats, and that option is so much better? It's like fighting with both hands tied behind our backs because being "natural" is somehow "fairer".

[SpacedX]

 

58 minutes ago, Soup said:

So when you say survivors you mean most people?

Remember - a virus that kills its host isn't a very successful virus nor is a detectable one.  

 

The survival and success of all pathogens require that they colonise the host - ideally undetected, reach an appropriate niche, avoid the defenses, replicate, and exit the infected host to spread to an uninfected one. This is perpetuated through mutation. The reason that we don't tend to see global viral outbreaks of highly severe diseases such as ebola is precisely that - it kills 50% of those infected and is not spread asymptomatically - which means it can be quickly contained. It also isn't as contagious as SARS-CoV-2. 

 

The vaccination programme is currently in a race against an ever evolving virus. I guarantee that in three months time, we will be discussing an entirely different variant and yes, there is always going to be the potential for vaccine escape. 

 

I think I may add this to my signature, so that I don't need to keep typing it, but remember, this is a global crisis. The population of the UK may well have a high rate of vaccination (46.4% have now received both shots), but throughout the entire African continent this is currently only 3%. In Pakistan only 1.3% of the population is fully vaccinated, in Bangladesh 2.6% and in Egypt it is as little as 0.9%, India 3.6%. Even highly developed countries such as Japan only have achieved 6.2% which is why there is so much resistance to staging the Olympic Games - and closer to home, France lags behind us at 26.8%. This means that the virus will continue to spread and mutate - and possibly at some stage evade vaccination.

 

I'm going to with some trepidation suggest that this scenario is unlikely and the potential to tweak RNA vaccines in particular is reassuring, but if it did happen, then we will once more find ourselves in that race to build immunity...and inevitably, future lockdown to protect our health service.  

 

This is why I tend to react so scathingly on this thread, because certain people don't seem to be able to comprehend this. When I see comments such as "this was all over two months ago", the contempt for social distancing or this continual agenda driven online cherry picking and populist social media trending confirmation bias, I will counter it.

 

This is a viral pandemic. It doesn't care about anyone's perceived "freedom".  

Edited 20 June 2021 by Line-X

[Nalis]

2 hours ago, Line-X said:

 

Remember - a virus that kills its host isn't a very successful virus nor is a detectable one.  

 

The survival and success of all pathogens require that they colonise the host - ideally undetected, reach an appropriate niche, avoid the defenses, replicate, and exit the infected host to spread to an uninfected one. This is perpetuated through mutation. The reason that we don't tend to see global viral outbreaks of highly severe diseases such as ebola is precisely that - it kills 50% of those infected and is not spread asymptomatically - which means it can be quickly contained. It also isn't as contagious as SARS-CoV-2. 

 

The vaccination programme is currently in a race against an ever evolving virus. I guarantee that in three months time, we will be discussing an entirely different variant and yes, there is always going to be the potential for vaccine escape. 

 

I think I may add this to my signature, so that I don't need to keep typing it, but remember, this is a global crisis. The population of the UK may well have a high rate of vaccination (46.4% have now received both shots), but throughout the entire African continent this is currently only 3%. In Pakistan only 1.3% of the population is fully vaccinated, in Bangladesh 2.6% and in Egypt it is as little as 0.9%, India 3.6%. Even highly developed countries such as Japan only have achieved 6.2% which is why there is so much resistance to staging the Olympic Games - and closer to home, France lags behind us at 26.8%. This means that the virus will continue to spread and mutate - and possibly at some stage evade vaccination.

 

I'm going to with some trepidation suggest that this scenario is unlikely and the potential to tweak RNA vaccines in particular is reassuring, but if it did happen, then we will once more find ourselves in that race to build immunity...and inevitably, future lockdown to protect our health service.  

 

This is why I tend to react so scathingly on this thread, because certain people don't seem to be able to comprehend this. When I see comments such as "this was all over two months ago", the contempt for social distancing or this continual agenda driven online cherry picking and populist social media trending confirmation bias, I will counter it.

 

This is a viral pandemic. It doesn't care about anyone's perceived "freedom".  

Depressingly true

[Soup]

5 hours ago, Line-X said:

 

Remember - a virus that kills its host isn't a very successful virus nor is a detectable one.  

 

The survival and success of all pathogens require that they colonise the host - ideally undetected, reach an appropriate niche, avoid the defenses, replicate, and exit the infected host to spread to an uninfected one. This is perpetuated through mutation. The reason that we don't tend to see global viral outbreaks of highly severe diseases such as ebola is precisely that - it kills 50% of those infected and is not spread asymptomatically - which means it can be quickly contained. It also isn't as contagious as SARS-CoV-2. 

 

The vaccination programme is currently in a race against an ever evolving virus. I guarantee that in three months time, we will be discussing an entirely different variant and yes, there is always going to be the potential for vaccine escape. 

 

I think I may add this to my signature, so that I don't need to keep typing it, but remember, this is a global crisis. The population of the UK may well have a high rate of vaccination (46.4% have now received both shots), but throughout the entire African continent this is currently only 3%. In Pakistan only 1.3% of the population is fully vaccinated, in Bangladesh 2.6% and in Egypt it is as little as 0.9%, India 3.6%. Even highly developed countries such as Japan only have achieved 6.2% which is why there is so much resistance to staging the Olympic Games - and closer to home, France lags behind us at 26.8%. This means that the virus will continue to spread and mutate - and possibly at some stage evade vaccination.

 

I'm going to with some trepidation suggest that this scenario is unlikely and the potential to tweak RNA vaccines in particular is reassuring, but if it did happen, then we will once more find ourselves in that race to build immunity...and inevitably, future lockdown to protect our health service.  

 

This is why I tend to react so scathingly on this thread, because certain people don't seem to be able to comprehend this. When I see comments such as "this was all over two months ago", the contempt for social distancing or this continual agenda driven online cherry picking and populist social media trending confirmation bias, I will counter it.

 

This is a viral pandemic. It doesn't care about anyone's perceived "freedom".  

Ok what's the point then as we're not getting the world vaccinated, that's a fact. If you believe we will then you're obviously not  as clever as you think.

 

I don't want to get in to arguments in here as clearly there's only one side to this and if you dare question it you'll be banned eventually. Good luck man 

 

 

 

[Blarmy]

So much stupid in this thread. So much clever too. 

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, Soup said:

Ok what's the point then as we're not getting the world vaccinated, that's a fact. If you believe we will then you're obviously not  as clever as you think.

 

I don't want to get in to arguments in here 

Eh?

 

I'm not looking for "arguments", least of all with a decent bloke on this forum like you - and understand that known science is not about "belief" - yours or mine. As you say, it is very unlikely that the entire world will be vaccinated, but as I have also discussed multiple times on this thread, we will at some stage arrive at a point that coronavirus can be contained and the less it spreads, the less it will mutate. I don't understand why the same people on here are unable to comprehend that this is a long game and although the UK may achieve very high rates of resistance, this will take many years globally and there will remain parts of the world that simply don't. Meantime, governments worldwide will continue to have to respond to new variants as they emerge. The world is not the same place as it was in November 2019 - there are the same people that populate this thread that remain in complete denial of that. 

 

8 minutes ago, Soup said:

there's only one side to this and if you dare question it you'll be banned eventually. Good luck man 

What precisely are you questioning? There is indeed only one side of this and that concerns the uncertain dynamic of a global viral infection - nothing to do with me. Nature is completely indifferent to you and I or the fact that you want to share a pint with your mates uninhibited or go to the football. Ludicrous claims such as "this was all over months ago", "it has been scientifically proven that facemasks don't work", "lockdown doesn't work" "Covid-19 is no worse that the flu", "we are living in a totalitarian state" help no one. Nor does the continual barrage of fallacious cherry picked social media incitement/confirmation bias. The lifting of restrictions was never going to happen on June 21st - I said that back in April. Not out of pessimism, but simply because it was overly optimistic. The threat of variants and the opening international travel was too great, but I concede that I was completely wrong about the threat of reopening schools.

 

I will continue to make sacrifices out of respect for others - y'know, the "moronic British public" (and by that I mean the denialists and the antivaxxers, not as was suggested earlier in the week, those that comply). I will also continue to to abide by these out of respect for our frontline workers in the NHS, as opposed to feeling the need to clatter pots and pans in my driveway last spring and summer.  

 

Asserting opinion over fact is not as some seem to think "critical thinking", nor is it "thinking out of the box". By all means question government mixed messaging, rhetoric from No.10, conflicting modelling, but in the absence of objective substantiation, that is not "scepticism".

 

If someone elects for whatever reason not to receive the full vaccinations for SARS-CoV-2  then we must respect that decision. But don't continually push it on others, likewise respect those that do and don't complain when you find that in the midst of a pandemic, you are subject to restrictions.  

 

The excruciating irony of this situation is that the small group of people on here pushing for premature relaxation are now pissed - but it's precisely that which pushed this back into July. 

 

[UniFox21]

49 minutes ago, Soup said:

I don't want to get in to arguments in here as clearly there's only one side to this and if you dare question it you'll be banned eventually. Good luck man 

Well no, there's a way to disagree with people and have valid discussions on these topics without causing arguments or posters getting overly defensive/offensive.  

 

Topics like this will always cause people to have polarising views, but the way some posters argue compared to others causes them to get banned. 

[dsr-burnley]

8 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Because that's the nature of evolution.

Isn't it more likely than one of the other coronaviruses that affects humans, for which we don't have a vaccine, will make that next evolutionary step?  Yes, we have gazillions of Covid-19s against which we have a vaccine, and that Covid-19 might sudenly mutate to something that the vaccine doesn't work against.  We also have several other coronaviruses against which we don't have a vaccine, any of which might mutate into something more lethal.  If that's how evolution works, then the question is to what extent should we lock down just in case.