CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 10)

[JuanCarlosFandango]

johnboy1975 said:

Its an endemic virus

Deaths will be down by 90-95%. Seasonality will mean its at low levels. If we can't live with it on May 17th I suggest we will never be able to live with it, despite Boris saying different.

Might only be a month (between May 17th and June 21st) but what is going to change, other than a proportion of the under 50s getting jabbed? Is that really going to make a fundamental difference? If not, why support it?

I'm open to the idea of (very minimal) restrictions in the winter. Should they be proved necessary and effective.

What it does is draw the battle lines. Some proportion of people will refuse it, and they (us) will be the problem. Most in the middle will take it and the covidian fundamentalists with the help of the compliant media will whip up as much anger as they can that this bunch of ignorant, selfish conspiracy theorists are holding everyone back from freedom. The government will hum and har about being nice liberals at heart who don't want compulsory vaccinations, then encourage as many employers, airlines, venues etc as they can to demand vaccine passports.

How that will play out depends on how many refuse and how successful they are at getting everyone else angry, but I suspect that will be the story of the summer.

Either way there will be a new strain, a drop off in the protection offered by the vaccine and a reluctant but clearly necessary return to lockdowns, masks and travel bans.

[Driller]

They’re talking about testing the kids in the schools here in France now. They are no doubt looking for more excuses to tighten the noose even further

[cymatty]

Can anyone think why the CT values are increasingly recently, different testing processing or something. Raw data here (table 6a)

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...

[PBCD]

Nickgnome said:

i was advised to sit for 15mins but i went into Sainsbury instead

Not Waitrose?

[steveT350C]

Nickgnome said:

Evidence is now building that the vaccine has a very significant impact on transmissibility.

Do you want these restrictions to last even longer?

Have you got a link to the data / evidence please?

[Leicester Loyal]

richardxjr said:

Yawn. Cant wait for the pubs to reopen, the gobby bores who like the sound of their own voice can crawl back there and bore the tits off somebody else

Let's be honest, those ones wouldn't speak to most people in real life how they do on the internet or they'd end up on their arse or with a glass in their face

• Not condoning that behaviour btw*

[survivalist]

Leicester Loyal said:

richardxjr said:

Yawn. Cant wait for the pubs to reopen, the gobby bores who like the sound of their own voice can crawl back there and bore the tits off somebody else

Let's be honest, those ones wouldn't speak to most people in real life how they do on the internet or they'd end up on their arse or with a glass in their face

• Not condoning that behaviour btw*

If last summer is anything to go by, all they’ll do is leave negative tripadvisor reviews saying that the lack of social distancing, arrows, signs etc was ‘disgusting’

I shouldn’t mock - it’s a useful guide as to how normal the place will be

[danllama]

Nickgnome said:

danllama said:

Nickgnome said:

danllama said:

The time frame for the restrictions is not linked to the vaccine uptake. We've seen that very clearly now, despite our great leader telling us the contrary in December.

Isn't it.


Please explain in detail as I disagree.

It doesn't require any detail. The key groups are vaccinated now. We still aren't lifting restrictions - shops won't even be open for another 7 weeks. If the vaccine uptake was the key to removing restrictions, as we were promised in December, it would happen between now and the first week of March, not June. That isn't happening.

No

The vaccine takes 21 days to be fully effective and that is just the first injection.

So vaccinated people are still vulnerable and able to carry the virus until after that period.

I'm sure if you really wanted to understand you could do a graph by age group and time.

Excuses. No excuse carries enough weight for continuing restrictions and lockdowns. They have all had their first jab. Tell them to shield for 2 weeks while the country opens up.

Our government aren't doing that though. They don't want us opening up.

[EddieSteadyGo]

cymatty said:

Can anyone think why the CT values are increasingly recently, different testing processing or something. Raw data here (table 6a)

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...

There are lots of reasons. A few off the top of my head;

i) Could be an age range difference - fewer older people getting ill (perhaps due to a vaccine effect, as they are more likely to be sicker and hence have a higher viral load) could move the median value.
ii) Could be caused by a greater amount of asymptomatic testing e.g. they did huge amount of door-to-door testing looking for the South African variant.
iii) Could be a change in the lab mix - not all labs use the same equipment, not calibrated quite the same etc
iv) Could be random - would need to see a longer timeframe to see a true pattern
v) Could be linked to the type of infections occurring e.g. due to lockdown a greater proportion of household spread vs previously high percentage of superspreader infection (with presumably higher viral load).

Hard to look at this type of data and conclude anything with certainty - it just gives some areas for more investigation imo.

[Elysium]

cymatty said:

Can anyone think why the CT values are increasingly recently, different testing processing or something. Raw data here (table 6a)

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...

I think this is quite logical.

High CT numbers indicate someone who has been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 but is unlikely to be infectious.

1. We are currently in the immediate aftermath of the peak, when there will be a lot of people around who may have had the virus in the last month or so.
2. We also have whole households going for testing when they think one might have been exposed.

In that situation, it seems likely to me that we will find more ex-infected, which will drive the average up.

The bigger issue for me is that the 25th percentile is around 26, which suggests that a substantial majority of PCR +ves may not be infectious

[CrutyRammers]

MyNewLeng said:

There's a real "Stockholm syndrome" vibe out there since the unlocking announcement yesterday. It's baffling to see people not wanting this to end and being "anxious" about being given back freedoms.


It appears there's alot of people out there who've had a taste of Big Government and have taken a liking to it. Not good for those of us who value freedom and liberty.

Yes, it's not at all good.

[isaldiri]

EddieSteadyGo said:

cymatty said:

Can anyone think why the CT values are increasingly recently, different testing processing or something. Raw data here (table 6a)

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...

There are lots of reasons. A few off the top of my head;

i) Could be an age range difference - fewer older people getting ill (perhaps due to a vaccine effect, as they are more likely to be sicker and hence have a higher viral load) could move the median value.
ii) Could be caused by a greater amount of asymptomatic testing e.g. they did huge amount of door-to-door testing looking for the South African variant.
iii) Could be a change in the lab mix - not all labs use the same equipment, not calibrated quite the same etc
iv) Could be random - would need to see a longer timeframe to see a true pattern
v) Could be linked to the type of infections occurring e.g. due to lockdown a greater proportion of household spread vs previously high percentage of superspreader infection (with presumably higher viral load).

Hard to look at this type of data and conclude anything with certainty - it just gives some areas for more investigation imo.

I think it's much simpler tbh. The amount of infections in circulating is in decline and the ct values reflect that by reducing to a lower average, and by quite a lot compared to when prevalence was spreading.

The infection survey is picking up people who are mostly past infection and have been for a while as it has taken a while to start seeing reductions in prevalence compared to zoe which was seeing much faster and earlier declines. It's only last week that the infection survey saw a big fall but ct levels had been steadily increasing for a while. It's very similar to november lockdown 2 - zoe saw quick falls in infections first but not the infection survey that remained relatively static but ct levels were increasing. The infection survey and zoe show increases at the same rate but not declines as that lags due to higher ct levels still being picked up.

[grumbledoak]

cymatty said:

Can anyone think why the CT values are increasingly recently, different testing processing or something. Raw data here (table 6a)

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...

Mean CT values (red) are not changing enormously


Interesting switch in the variant detected though (black and green). Talked about here -
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-new-varian...

[isaldiri]

grumbledoak said:

Mean CT values (red) are not changing enormously

Ct levels work on a log scale. There is a heap more virus in a ct of 25 compared to 30. That change doesn't seem large but it is very significant in terms of amount of viral particles.

[grumbledoak]

isaldiri said:

Ct levels work on a log scale. There is a heap more virus in a ct of 25 compared to 30. That change doesn't seem large but it is very significant in terms of amount of viral particles.

Well aware of that. But it's a long way short of the 40 that was talked of last summer and the rise, fall, rise effect isn't easy to interpret.

[Otispunkmeyer]

knitware said:

What's happened to the South African varient, it's gone a bit quiet on the panic front?

From listening to TWiV (This Week in Virology) Podcast, the one were they had Dr Offit on, I think I made out that he was saying the vaccines seem to be providing protection against it, because even though it is a bit more virulent it is not different enough for the vaccine not to work. He basically said they haven't seen any variant thus far that has been able to "cross the line" so to speak to where the vaccines would no longer work. He also expects that whilst the vaccines are non-sterilising, they will likely lead to less transmission as "infected" persons will shed less.

So, sounds to me like its not worth worrying about. They certainly weren't and the chap who hosts the cast is certainly someone you can listen to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Racaniello

He was the first person to sequence and construct an infectious clone of an animal RNA (polio) virus. A feat which revolutionised modern virology. So the man and the company he keeps definitely know a thing or two. Its a great Podcast if you just want facts and detail.

Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Tuesday 23 February 21:08

[Fubar1977]

Nickgnome said:

To help prevent more virulent mutations.

There are still vulnerable people of all ages including those who have undergone surgery.

Surely we as a society want to protect as many people as possible so isn't it a sociably responsible thing to do?

It seems 'for the greater good' is no longer thing.

If clinicians and key workers are vaccinated why not everyone else?

I actually think I'm starting to miss Sambucket.
At least he could be somewhat entertaining.

This gnome creature on the other hand...

[johnboy1975]

Nickgnome said:

johnboy1975 said:

......which takes us to May 17th (for over 50s + 17 days). May 21st if you want 21 days?

IIRC we were promised freedoms after the over 70s had been done (plus the obligatory 17/21 days)??

1st dose seems to hold up in real life - at least until the 2nd dose 12 wks later

Will vaccinating the under 50s make a meaningful difference to hospitalisations and deaths?

Sorry but I have no idea.

As I said I concern myself with things I can control.

So if Boris tomorrow said "zero covid, full lockdown til April 2022" that would be fine as you cannot control it?

We do have (some) control. More than the government would care to admit. 10m on the street tomorrow would end it (all) - for better or worse.

I guess I charge you with being complicit in this (because you see it ending tomorrow as "worse")

And I charge myself with cowardice for not speaking up sooner, and not speaking up now (my weasel excuse that I have no voice is a poor excuse, because what little voice I have, I'm not prepared to use).

I'll wait til May, the government will move the goalposts, I'll shrug and wait for the next date given to me. And hope that date is truthful, whilst knowing it's not. And quietly "rebelling" by seeing friends and family.

Edited by johnboy1975 on Tuesday 23 February 20:47

[Nickgnome]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Never run a marathon in my life. Two hours is my limit.

Best half m 1.22 best 16K 59.40 twenty odd years ago.

Tad slower now. But it's fun giving some youngsters a surprise, especially after 2 or 3K when the run out of steam.

There is no Waitrose on our island so obviously delivered.

[Otispunkmeyer]

johnboy1975 said:

Dr Doofenshmirtz said:

johnboy1975 said:

The more people that get vaccinated, the greater the chance of the virus mutating to evade the vaccine. (Vaccine escape). Adapt or die......its been going on for millenia

Covid19 just said "hold my beer"......

Does this mean we can never reopen our borders?

No, that's nonsense. The vaccine in simple terms tells the body how to fight a virus and gives it the tools it needs to do so. The virus might mutate, but since it's still related to the parent strain, the body will still have a good idea where it's nuts need kicking to fight it, so you'd be less likely to get very ill.

What I mean is, *if* a mutation occurs that is vaccine resistant, it will have a massive advantage

Not that the virus will think "hmm, everyone's vaccinated, I'd better drop a spike protein to evade it' (which i guess was implied in my post, so apologies)

Whether thats possible (complete escape) I'm not so sure. Seems to be a sliding scale of effectiveness.

I've brought up Mareks in chickens before. What has happened there is that you now need to vaccinate all your chickens all of the time because if they do get Mareks, its curtains for them. Whereas when Mareks first appeared, the mortality rate was much lower (now its 100%).

That was caused by mass vaccination using a non-sterilising vaccine that had very good effectiveness. Its not that the virus decided to get stronger, its that it mutated into a stronger variant and, where normally it would have killed the host and not moved on, now all the hosts were resistant to it, so it persisted. Few decades down the line, it means a pretty potent virus has been allowed to persist because it can still pass from host to host without killing them all off and stopping its own spread.


I am not sure that this will happen here though. It sounds like you have to have a very effective virus and you have to be able to sustain vaccination of the whole population. There are plenty of non-sterilising vaccines in use, but not everyone gets them (or needs them) and they're often not very highly effective. Flu-vaccine is a good example, its not sterilising, but only a subset of people get the shot every year (at risk people) and its only got a 50-60% effectiveness anyway.

I think we'll be in the same boat here. Only the Pfizer seems to have 90%+ effectiveness, AZN is around 70% and of course, not sure on the others like Moderna or Novavax. As much as some may dream for it, not everyone is going to get vaccinated for one reason or another.

So probably, not something to worry about? Again, not an expert so someone who knows more is welcome to shoot me down or pad out what I found.