CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 13)
Discussion
jameswills said:
superlightr said:
Vaccine will set you free. Papers please.
How people can’t see where this is heading astounds me. I mean play it out over the next year; vaccinated people are happy to have the passport in place, as they feel that they have done their bit and can’t see why those that haven’t taken the medicine should have the same rights (this is the sole reason people are for them, pure selfishness). We know the vaccine doesn’t stop transmission, the passport scheme is likely to do absolutely nothing for infection rates, possibly make them worse, and the government insist on a booster scheme. The same people championing freedom are unable to do what they were promised until they get a booster. Where the hell does that end?If you don’t resist this now, you’re setting up a good 5 to 6 years of absolute mayhem. It needs to be nipped in the bud very quickly. I fear though we are way too late.
Right now, this thing could go one of two ways:
Scenario 1: a combination of herd immunity, existing levels of vaccination, and a dose of good luck mean that the follow-up variants are less troublesome and this virus fades into the background, coming back now and again like flu
Scenario 2: a dose of bad luck has the next variant twice or more as nasty, and society grinds to a halt.
What are the odds for each scenario? I don't have that data; it is likely nobody does. But so far variants are not looking "nicer" - Delta is the most transmissible virus ever studied, apparently.
So how do you do the best you can to protect against the effects of a possible Scenario 2? The only thing you can do is to try to boost the levels of immunity in the community by whatever means you have available to you. That means mass vaccination.
Like so many Government decisions, this one's a lose-lose. If you take the precaution, and the nasty variant never shows up, you were over-reacting. If you don't take the precaution and the nasty variant does show up, you've got XXXXX deaths on your hands & a collapsed NHS.
We know what the effects of lockdowns, masks, social distancing, etc. are. So if "the big one" comes we've got a handle on how we could deal with it. But we also know the cost of that. Instead, we need more immunity.
Now, people are going to say "but the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission of Delta." No, it seems it doesn't. But it does reduce transmission of the original virus. It might prevent or reduce transmission of later strains. And it does appear to massively reduce the severity of illness amongst those infected.
So what it seems we *can* say from the data is that more vaccination is leading to reduced negative outcomes.
We can't predict the future by looking at the past. Just because the variants to date haven't tried all that hard to wipe us out, doesn't mean the next one won't. This is not theoretical - this is an actual active pandemic with a fast-mutating virus.
If anyone would like to point out where the missing Scenario 3 is, I'm happy to listen. I'm not into scare-mongering, I've no desire for doom. But we appear to be at a point at which this pandemic could go one of two ways. I sincerely hope it is Scenario 1. However, the old "hope for the best, plan for the worst" is precisely what we have Governments for.
Does that justify imposing restrictions on those who aren't vaccinated? That's the big moral question here. But I don't think it fair to say there is no underlying scientific reason why one might wish to do it - it isn't *only* an Orwellian nightmare
Just had another earful from wife about not taking the vaccine. Apparently here in Northern Ireland there are plans afoot to start winding down the vax programme.
To me, all the press around this reads very much like typical marketing patter - restrict the access and create some urgency in order to sell more!
Anyway, then it came - majority of those in ICU are un-vaxed, under 40s.
Now maybe I've missed it, but where exactly is the data that shows the vax/unvax split of those in hospitals? It seems to be all over the press but I can't actually find any source data showing same...
To me, all the press around this reads very much like typical marketing patter - restrict the access and create some urgency in order to sell more!
Anyway, then it came - majority of those in ICU are un-vaxed, under 40s.
Now maybe I've missed it, but where exactly is the data that shows the vax/unvax split of those in hospitals? It seems to be all over the press but I can't actually find any source data showing same...
So now we have to vaccinate the less vulnerable just in case future variants are more transmissible, to protect the vulnerable, even though the vulnerable are already vaccinated and the vaccine does not reduce transmission.
All logic has left the building. My hair is a bird. Do what you're told.
All logic has left the building. My hair is a bird. Do what you're told.
Seems the cdc assertion of vaccinated people being equally infectious is based on shakey data
https://mobile.twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1...
https://mobile.twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1...
skwdenyer said:
Let's play this out from a scientific perspective.
Right now, this thing could go one of two ways:
Scenario 1: a combination of herd immunity, existing levels of vaccination, and a dose of good luck mean that the follow-up variants are less troublesome and this virus fades into the background, coming back now and again like flu
Scenario 2: a dose of bad luck has the next variant twice or more as nasty, and society grinds to a halt.
What are the odds for each scenario? I don't have that data; it is likely nobody does. But so far variants are not looking "nicer" - Delta is the most transmissible virus ever studied, apparently.
So how do you do the best you can to protect against the effects of a possible Scenario 2? The only thing you can do is to try to boost the levels of immunity in the community by whatever means you have available to you. That means mass vaccination.
Like so many Government decisions, this one's a lose-lose. If you take the precaution, and the nasty variant never shows up, you were over-reacting. If you don't take the precaution and the nasty variant does show up, you've got XXXXX deaths on your hands & a collapsed NHS.
We know what the effects of lockdowns, masks, social distancing, etc. are. So if "the big one" comes we've got a handle on how we could deal with it. But we also know the cost of that. Instead, we need more immunity.
Now, people are going to say "but the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission of Delta." No, it seems it doesn't. But it does reduce transmission of the original virus. It might prevent or reduce transmission of later strains. And it does appear to massively reduce the severity of illness amongst those infected.
So what it seems we *can* say from the data is that more vaccination is leading to reduced negative outcomes.
We can't predict the future by looking at the past. Just because the variants to date haven't tried all that hard to wipe us out, doesn't mean the next one won't. This is not theoretical - this is an actual active pandemic with a fast-mutating virus.
If anyone would like to point out where the missing Scenario 3 is, I'm happy to listen. I'm not into scare-mongering, I've no desire for doom. But we appear to be at a point at which this pandemic could go one of two ways. I sincerely hope it is Scenario 1. However, the old "hope for the best, plan for the worst" is precisely what we have Governments for.
Does that justify imposing restrictions on those who aren't vaccinated? That's the big moral question here. But I don't think it fair to say there is no underlying scientific reason why one might wish to do it - it isn't *only* an Orwellian nightmare
Scenario 3, we open up now with zero restrictions, ditch testing and any other thing that prevents free movement, as we’ve jabbed the vulnerable and we really really need the invulnerable to get natural immunity by circulating as much as possible before winter, that’s how you prevent spread of a virus, that’s how we have normally coped with it. Else we are stuck doing the same thing for a long long while. Natural immunity is the way out, the vaccine was not invented to do that it was invented to allow natural immunity to happen but at the same time hopefully keeping hospitalisations at a minimum so our health service could still operate. Right now, this thing could go one of two ways:
Scenario 1: a combination of herd immunity, existing levels of vaccination, and a dose of good luck mean that the follow-up variants are less troublesome and this virus fades into the background, coming back now and again like flu
Scenario 2: a dose of bad luck has the next variant twice or more as nasty, and society grinds to a halt.
What are the odds for each scenario? I don't have that data; it is likely nobody does. But so far variants are not looking "nicer" - Delta is the most transmissible virus ever studied, apparently.
So how do you do the best you can to protect against the effects of a possible Scenario 2? The only thing you can do is to try to boost the levels of immunity in the community by whatever means you have available to you. That means mass vaccination.
Like so many Government decisions, this one's a lose-lose. If you take the precaution, and the nasty variant never shows up, you were over-reacting. If you don't take the precaution and the nasty variant does show up, you've got XXXXX deaths on your hands & a collapsed NHS.
We know what the effects of lockdowns, masks, social distancing, etc. are. So if "the big one" comes we've got a handle on how we could deal with it. But we also know the cost of that. Instead, we need more immunity.
Now, people are going to say "but the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission of Delta." No, it seems it doesn't. But it does reduce transmission of the original virus. It might prevent or reduce transmission of later strains. And it does appear to massively reduce the severity of illness amongst those infected.
So what it seems we *can* say from the data is that more vaccination is leading to reduced negative outcomes.
We can't predict the future by looking at the past. Just because the variants to date haven't tried all that hard to wipe us out, doesn't mean the next one won't. This is not theoretical - this is an actual active pandemic with a fast-mutating virus.
If anyone would like to point out where the missing Scenario 3 is, I'm happy to listen. I'm not into scare-mongering, I've no desire for doom. But we appear to be at a point at which this pandemic could go one of two ways. I sincerely hope it is Scenario 1. However, the old "hope for the best, plan for the worst" is precisely what we have Governments for.
Does that justify imposing restrictions on those who aren't vaccinated? That's the big moral question here. But I don't think it fair to say there is no underlying scientific reason why one might wish to do it - it isn't *only* an Orwellian nightmare
Appreciate the thought process though, but we’ve long since lost sight now of what our objective is. Whether you believe that’s by accident or deliberate is now the only thing up for debate.
skwdenyer said:
Let's play this out from a scientific perspective.
Right now, this thing could go one of two ways:
Scenario 1: a combination of herd immunity, existing levels of vaccination, and a dose of good luck mean that the follow-up variants are less troublesome and this virus fades into the background, coming back now and again like flu
Scenario 2: a dose of bad luck has the next variant twice or more as nasty, and society grinds to a halt.
What are the odds for each scenario? I don't have that data; it is likely nobody does. But so far variants are not looking "nicer" - Delta is the most transmissible virus ever studied, apparently.
So how do you do the best you can to protect against the effects of a possible Scenario 2? The only thing you can do is to try to boost the levels of immunity in the community by whatever means you have available to you. That means mass vaccination.
Like so many Government decisions, this one's a lose-lose. If you take the precaution, and the nasty variant never shows up, you were over-reacting. If you don't take the precaution and the nasty variant does show up, you've got XXXXX deaths on your hands & a collapsed NHS.
We know what the effects of lockdowns, masks, social distancing, etc. are. So if "the big one" comes we've got a handle on how we could deal with it. But we also know the cost of that. Instead, we need more immunity.
Now, people are going to say "but the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission of Delta." No, it seems it doesn't. But it does reduce transmission of the original virus. It might prevent or reduce transmission of later strains. And it does appear to massively reduce the severity of illness amongst those infected.
So what it seems we *can* say from the data is that more vaccination is leading to reduced negative outcomes.
We can't predict the future by looking at the past. Just because the variants to date haven't tried all that hard to wipe us out, doesn't mean the next one won't. This is not theoretical - this is an actual active pandemic with a fast-mutating virus.
If anyone would like to point out where the missing Scenario 3 is, I'm happy to listen. I'm not into scare-mongering, I've no desire for doom. But we appear to be at a point at which this pandemic could go one of two ways. I sincerely hope it is Scenario 1. However, the old "hope for the best, plan for the worst" is precisely what we have Governments for.
Does that justify imposing restrictions on those who aren't vaccinated? That's the big moral question here. But I don't think it fair to say there is no underlying scientific reason why one might wish to do it - it isn't *only* an Orwellian nightmare
Its all iff's and maybe's though, in any given year the flu virus could have mutated into a mass killer of everyone but we never decided to vaccinate the whole planet just in case.Right now, this thing could go one of two ways:
Scenario 1: a combination of herd immunity, existing levels of vaccination, and a dose of good luck mean that the follow-up variants are less troublesome and this virus fades into the background, coming back now and again like flu
Scenario 2: a dose of bad luck has the next variant twice or more as nasty, and society grinds to a halt.
What are the odds for each scenario? I don't have that data; it is likely nobody does. But so far variants are not looking "nicer" - Delta is the most transmissible virus ever studied, apparently.
So how do you do the best you can to protect against the effects of a possible Scenario 2? The only thing you can do is to try to boost the levels of immunity in the community by whatever means you have available to you. That means mass vaccination.
Like so many Government decisions, this one's a lose-lose. If you take the precaution, and the nasty variant never shows up, you were over-reacting. If you don't take the precaution and the nasty variant does show up, you've got XXXXX deaths on your hands & a collapsed NHS.
We know what the effects of lockdowns, masks, social distancing, etc. are. So if "the big one" comes we've got a handle on how we could deal with it. But we also know the cost of that. Instead, we need more immunity.
Now, people are going to say "but the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission of Delta." No, it seems it doesn't. But it does reduce transmission of the original virus. It might prevent or reduce transmission of later strains. And it does appear to massively reduce the severity of illness amongst those infected.
So what it seems we *can* say from the data is that more vaccination is leading to reduced negative outcomes.
We can't predict the future by looking at the past. Just because the variants to date haven't tried all that hard to wipe us out, doesn't mean the next one won't. This is not theoretical - this is an actual active pandemic with a fast-mutating virus.
If anyone would like to point out where the missing Scenario 3 is, I'm happy to listen. I'm not into scare-mongering, I've no desire for doom. But we appear to be at a point at which this pandemic could go one of two ways. I sincerely hope it is Scenario 1. However, the old "hope for the best, plan for the worst" is precisely what we have Governments for.
Does that justify imposing restrictions on those who aren't vaccinated? That's the big moral question here. But I don't think it fair to say there is no underlying scientific reason why one might wish to do it - it isn't *only* an Orwellian nightmare
What about a killer asteroid, its possible one could be hurtling towards us right now big enough to wipe our whole country out, it could be a matter of days away for all anyone knows, why are we not building massive underground bunkers to sustain life just in case?
cymatty said:
Seems the cdc assertion of vaccinated people being equally infectious is based on shakey data
https://mobile.twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1...
Pharma companies panicking after Fauci's speech.https://mobile.twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1...
Wonder what pays the bills for that person....
Edited by g4ry13 on Wednesday 28th July 19:50
grumbledoak said:
We have to vaccinate the less vulnerable just in case future variants are more transmissible, to protect the vulnerable, even though the vulnerable are already vaccinated and the vaccine does not reduce transmission.
All logic has left the building. My hair is a bird. Do what you're told.
I have to admit that I was struggling to follow the logic! All logic has left the building. My hair is a bird. Do what you're told.
It sounded a bit like we vaccinated the vulnerable to protect them but because we have vaccinated every man and his dog, the virus has mutated so that the vaccinated vulnerable are now vulnerable to the new variant so the answer is to give everybody a booster and so on and so forth ad infinitum.
Or am I missing something? Happy to admit that I may be………it won’t be the first time
jameswills said:
How thick are people? Let me get this straight, anyone right now can go to a nightclub. But from September the government will impose a law that makes people without a vaccine unable to go to one. Yet he triumphs the vaccine as the path to freedom? We are free, until the government mandate that we are not. All the cliches of slippery slope, creep, boiling frog could be mentioned but I think my first sentence answers itself. Very thick.
By George, I think you’ve got it! skwdenyer said:
What are the odds for each scenario? I don't have that data; it is likely nobody does. But so far variants are not looking "nicer" - Delta is the most transmissible virus ever studied, apparently.
Er.... what?! Most transmissible in terms of what? R0? nowhere even close. immune evasion? Bloody doubt it.skwdenyer said:
Let's play this out from a scientific perspective.
Right now, this thing could go one of two ways:
Scenario 1: a combination of herd immunity, existing levels of vaccination, and a dose of good luck mean that the follow-up variants are less troublesome and this virus fades into the background, coming back now and again like flu
Scenario 2: a dose of bad luck has the next variant twice or more as nasty, and society grinds to a halt.
Well..... you could look at what thousands if not more of years of evolution of similar viral variants have done since you claim to want to 'play this out from a scientific perspective'. We have 3 members of the coronavirus family found in humans that have been around for ages, one for probably a bit more than 100 years... and now a 5th one that has just emerged. What exactly is going to be so special about this new 5th coronavirus that is going to cause your prospective scenario 2 when thousands if not millions of variants of the other 4 have been produced over the years?Right now, this thing could go one of two ways:
Scenario 1: a combination of herd immunity, existing levels of vaccination, and a dose of good luck mean that the follow-up variants are less troublesome and this virus fades into the background, coming back now and again like flu
Scenario 2: a dose of bad luck has the next variant twice or more as nasty, and society grinds to a halt.
skwdenyer said:
We can't predict the future by looking at the past. Just because the variants to date haven't tried all that hard to wipe us out, doesn't mean the next one won't. This is not theoretical - this is an actual active pandemic with a fast-mutating virus.
I'm not into scare-mongering, I've no desire for doom. But we appear to be at a point at which this pandemic could go one of two ways. I sincerely hope it is Scenario 1. However, the old "hope for the best, plan for the worst" is precisely what we have Governments for.
Well everything you have posted recently suggests that's exactly what you are intending - scaremongering and desiring doom. If governments were planning for every single worst case scenario we would be forever living under some form of martial law 'just in case' something happens that just might be bad. I'm not into scare-mongering, I've no desire for doom. But we appear to be at a point at which this pandemic could go one of two ways. I sincerely hope it is Scenario 1. However, the old "hope for the best, plan for the worst" is precisely what we have Governments for.
P.S and you might note that all the supposedly dangerous variants have emerged from fairly random places that have not obviously had very high prevalence. B117 emerged in the UK when prevalence was low. B1617.2 emerged in india before they had their really large wave. The US which has had high levels of prevalence haven't managed to create some fantastically dangerous variants. The idea that infections need to be constantly suppressed to prevent 'the next bad variant' is simply an attempted argument for zerocovid or wanting to fight the forever covid war for whatever reason which is about as stupid as it would be as unachieveable.
How many new Corona viruses have we put up against mass leaky vaccination during a period of high prevalence?
Not only are the vaccines relatively untested, so is the scenario they're being used in. We are makin guinea pigs of hundreds of millions of people, most of whom were never at risk from Covid.
Meanwhile our governments plough on with passports that can't logically work, because the justification is to prevent spread, but being vaccinated doesn't prevent spread. People are defending poor medical practice on the alter of political expediency.
I hope for my elderly relatives' sake and for the millions upon millions of other people who've been vaccinated without informed consent, that the mass vaccinations don't promote vaccine escaping mutations or ADE. If we end up there we might be in for a world of pain.
Not only are the vaccines relatively untested, so is the scenario they're being used in. We are makin guinea pigs of hundreds of millions of people, most of whom were never at risk from Covid.
Meanwhile our governments plough on with passports that can't logically work, because the justification is to prevent spread, but being vaccinated doesn't prevent spread. People are defending poor medical practice on the alter of political expediency.
I hope for my elderly relatives' sake and for the millions upon millions of other people who've been vaccinated without informed consent, that the mass vaccinations don't promote vaccine escaping mutations or ADE. If we end up there we might be in for a world of pain.
skwdenyer said:
Now, people are going to say "but the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission of Delta." No, it seems it doesn't. But it does reduce transmission of the original virus. It might prevent or reduce transmission of later strains. And it does appear to massively reduce the severity of illness amongst those infected.
A new variant is going to come along, of which transmission is blocked by the vaccine? How the bloody hell is it supposed to displace Delta, which isn't blocked by the vaccine?
A variant which will be stopped by the vaccine is almost dead in the water, due (in no small part) to the success of the vaccine rollout
Edit: the reason Delta did do well against Alpha was (at least partly) due to the vaccine blocking Alpha. So in fact, the fault of Delta being prevalent lies partly with the strategy of trying to vaccinate everyone. If we had opened up when the vunerable were jabbed and Alpha was still knocking about in numbers, Alpha could have gone through the non vunerable, whilst the vunerable were actually protected (from infection) by the vaccine. (Not sure if the timelines correlate, and maybe Delta with its alleged higher R0 might have prevailed in any case)
Edit2: What might have worked would have been a 'ring of steel' approach to new variants, especially wrt foreign travel - Just until the vinerable were double jabbed (Mid April? May 1st) Disregarding India we almost had it. We were (demonstrably) wrong to disregard India. Delta would have got in eventually (see Australia) and maybe even still become prevalent. Alpha would have had a better chance though.
Support home grown viruses!!
Edited by johnboy1975 on Wednesday 28th July 20:27
Article in Telegraph
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/28/britai...
Few quotes
Scientists say they are “puzzled” by the recent drop, blaming it on the heatwave, school closures, the Euros tournament ending, or a decrease in testing. It may even be the result of the “pingdemic” causing mass isolation and lowering transmission, they say, or else people are no longer being tested for fear of missing holidays.
Few straws have been left unclutched in the bid to explain the anomaly. Yet amid the bewilderment, few seem willing to consider the prospect that it is the vaccination programme which is doing most of the heavy lifting. Britain may be finally nearing the Holy Grail of herd immunity.
And
Dr David Matthews, a virologist and expert in coronaviruses from the University of Bristol, said: “In terms of herd immunity – by which we mean the virus has managed to reach everybody and therefore most people will have a level of immune memory – I suspect we’re very close to it.
“Assuming nothing truly spectacularly leftfield happens then this pandemic is pretty much over for the UK. I suspect we will not see a major surge this winter, or any serious levels of fatalities.
“The more we close the gap on the last 10 per cent who haven’t had the vaccine the better we will be. Everyone will eventually meet the virus and it is far better to do so vaccinated.”
Dr Matthews added: “I’ve worked on a lot of respiratory viruses and controversially I believe this virus isn’t a killer.
“Flu kills babies and old people and it’s quite capable of killing people who have had the vaccine, but the issue here is that collectively, as a species, humans have no memory of this virus, so everyone’s immune system is starting from scratch.
“That’s ok if you’re a child but not if you’re in your 50s, 60s and 70 and relying on the memory of previous viruses.
“I think we will eventually live in a world where you will meet this virus as a kid and develop immunity early. Reaching a truce with the virus is probably where we’re heading.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/28/britai...
Few quotes
Scientists say they are “puzzled” by the recent drop, blaming it on the heatwave, school closures, the Euros tournament ending, or a decrease in testing. It may even be the result of the “pingdemic” causing mass isolation and lowering transmission, they say, or else people are no longer being tested for fear of missing holidays.
Few straws have been left unclutched in the bid to explain the anomaly. Yet amid the bewilderment, few seem willing to consider the prospect that it is the vaccination programme which is doing most of the heavy lifting. Britain may be finally nearing the Holy Grail of herd immunity.
And
Dr David Matthews, a virologist and expert in coronaviruses from the University of Bristol, said: “In terms of herd immunity – by which we mean the virus has managed to reach everybody and therefore most people will have a level of immune memory – I suspect we’re very close to it.
“Assuming nothing truly spectacularly leftfield happens then this pandemic is pretty much over for the UK. I suspect we will not see a major surge this winter, or any serious levels of fatalities.
“The more we close the gap on the last 10 per cent who haven’t had the vaccine the better we will be. Everyone will eventually meet the virus and it is far better to do so vaccinated.”
Dr Matthews added: “I’ve worked on a lot of respiratory viruses and controversially I believe this virus isn’t a killer.
“Flu kills babies and old people and it’s quite capable of killing people who have had the vaccine, but the issue here is that collectively, as a species, humans have no memory of this virus, so everyone’s immune system is starting from scratch.
“That’s ok if you’re a child but not if you’re in your 50s, 60s and 70 and relying on the memory of previous viruses.
“I think we will eventually live in a world where you will meet this virus as a kid and develop immunity early. Reaching a truce with the virus is probably where we’re heading.”
APontus said:
How many new Corona viruses have we put up against mass leaky vaccination during a period of high prevalence?
Not only are the vaccines relatively untested, so is the scenario they're being used in. We are makin guinea pigs of hundreds of millions of people, most of whom were never at risk from Covid.
Meanwhile our governments plough on with passports that can't logically work, because the justification is to prevent spread, but being vaccinated doesn't prevent spread. People are defending poor medical practice on the alter of political expediency.
I hope for my elderly relatives' sake and for the millions upon millions of other people who've been vaccinated without informed consent, that the mass vaccinations don't promote vaccine escaping mutations or ADE. If we end up there we might be in for a world of pain.
Agreed. And to elaborate on the bold, the political motives of Boris and the political tendencies of those backing vaccine passports, are far from closely aligned. Boris wants to restrict society, I'm guessing, but I think the vast majority of the pro jab lot want to restrict covid, and fight the zero covid war (2019-2025 - at which point even they will give up (hopefully))Not only are the vaccines relatively untested, so is the scenario they're being used in. We are makin guinea pigs of hundreds of millions of people, most of whom were never at risk from Covid.
Meanwhile our governments plough on with passports that can't logically work, because the justification is to prevent spread, but being vaccinated doesn't prevent spread. People are defending poor medical practice on the alter of political expediency.
I hope for my elderly relatives' sake and for the millions upon millions of other people who've been vaccinated without informed consent, that the mass vaccinations don't promote vaccine escaping mutations or ADE. If we end up there we might be in for a world of pain.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i...
"Thromboembolic Events and Thrombosis With Thrombocytopenia After COVID-19 Infection and Vaccination in Catalonia, Spain"
"We included 945,941 BNT162b2 (778,534 with 2 doses), 426,272 ChAdOx1, 222,710 COVID-19, and 4,570,149 background participants. "
Large scale real world paper. 37 page PDF preprint free to download and worth a read.
Was AZ unfairly maligned and big opportunities missed?
(Obviously the 'do your own research' expert hater lot will disagree with this paper from people, vastly more qualified, who literally did their own research.... )
"Thromboembolic Events and Thrombosis With Thrombocytopenia After COVID-19 Infection and Vaccination in Catalonia, Spain"
"We included 945,941 BNT162b2 (778,534 with 2 doses), 426,272 ChAdOx1, 222,710 COVID-19, and 4,570,149 background participants. "
Large scale real world paper. 37 page PDF preprint free to download and worth a read.
Was AZ unfairly maligned and big opportunities missed?
(Obviously the 'do your own research' expert hater lot will disagree with this paper from people, vastly more qualified, who literally did their own research.... )
johnboy1975 said:
Edit: the reason Delta did do well against Alpha was (at least partly) due to the vaccine blocking Alpha. So in fact, the fault of Delta being prevalent lies partly with the strategy of trying to vaccinate everyone. If we had opened up when the vunerable were jabbed and Alpha was still knocking about in numbers, Alpha could have gone through the non vunerable, whilst the vunerable were actually protected (from infection) by the vaccine. (Not sure if the timelines correlate, and maybe Delta with its alleged higher R0 might have prevailed in any case)
Not entirely sure b1617.2 has achieved that due to vaccine escape capability tbh. Most of the early infections were amongst younger people who would not have been vaccinated. even now, infection rates are higher in those that have 1 dose or less than the double vaxxed people. I think it's a combination of possibly some intrinsic increase in transmissibility that is mixed up with less obvious/different symptoms (a much greater factor I'd suspect) that has caused that difference in transmissibility than immune escape. As I have said, although R0 of 6-7 regularly gets bandied around for the current variant, the rates of transmission amongst the unvaccinated cohorts have absolutely not in any way suggested it is actually a virus of that level of transmissibility as it never seems to have gone much above Rt of 2 irrespective of vaccine status of cohort. unless rule of 6 and the mish mash of tier 3 restrictions were marvellously effective in stopping transmission (in which case that makes the lockdowns especially stupid) that has reduced a R0 ~ 6 virus down to < 2 even amongst unvaccinated people, I still think the earlier claims of 50% more of a prior supposedly 50% increased transmissibility variant is an exceptionally crude way of estimating what B1617.2 actually has as a 'true' R0.
Still trying to quantify how much better off I would be if I was vaccinated.
So taking data from page 18 here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
My thinking is that I don't particularly want to end up sick enough to require a hospital stay, less so ICU, and even less death.
Taking the % of hospitalised vax'd and unvax'd as a proportion of the case numbers, (orange under 50s, blue over 50s) gives me:
So am I right in thinking that the vaccination means a reduction in the likelihood of hospitalisation by a mere 0.26% for the under 50s ?
So taking data from page 18 here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
My thinking is that I don't particularly want to end up sick enough to require a hospital stay, less so ICU, and even less death.
Taking the % of hospitalised vax'd and unvax'd as a proportion of the case numbers, (orange under 50s, blue over 50s) gives me:
So am I right in thinking that the vaccination means a reduction in the likelihood of hospitalisation by a mere 0.26% for the under 50s ?
Andy888 said:
Still trying to quantify how much better off I would be if I was vaccinated.
So taking data from page 18 here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
My thinking is that I don't particularly want to end up sick enough to require a hospital stay, less so ICU, and even less death.
Taking the % of hospitalised vax'd and unvax'd as a proportion of the case numbers, (orange under 50s, blue over 50s) gives me:
So am I right in thinking that the vaccination means a reduction in the likelihood of hospitalisation by a mere 0.26% for the under 50s ?
That ignores population size. It's more like 9x reductionSo taking data from page 18 here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
My thinking is that I don't particularly want to end up sick enough to require a hospital stay, less so ICU, and even less death.
Taking the % of hospitalised vax'd and unvax'd as a proportion of the case numbers, (orange under 50s, blue over 50s) gives me:
So am I right in thinking that the vaccination means a reduction in the likelihood of hospitalisation by a mere 0.26% for the under 50s ?
Boringvolvodriver said:
Article in Telegraph
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/28/britai...
Few quotes
Dr Matthews added: “I’ve worked on a lot of respiratory viruses and controversially I believe this virus isn’t a killer.
“Flu kills babies and old people and it’s quite capable of killing people who have had the vaccine, but the issue here is that collectively, as a species, humans have no memory of this virus, so everyone’s immune system is starting from scratch.
“That’s ok if you’re a child but not if you’re in your 50s, 60s and 70 and relying on the memory of previous viruses.
“I think we will eventually live in a world where you will meet this virus as a kid and develop immunity early. Reaching a truce with the virus is probably where we’re heading.”
Isn't this, along with with fact that it's now mutated to be weaker, why Spanish Flu is endemic and just another flu, and why many have no symptoms from SARS COV 2?https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/28/britai...
Few quotes
Dr Matthews added: “I’ve worked on a lot of respiratory viruses and controversially I believe this virus isn’t a killer.
“Flu kills babies and old people and it’s quite capable of killing people who have had the vaccine, but the issue here is that collectively, as a species, humans have no memory of this virus, so everyone’s immune system is starting from scratch.
“That’s ok if you’re a child but not if you’re in your 50s, 60s and 70 and relying on the memory of previous viruses.
“I think we will eventually live in a world where you will meet this virus as a kid and develop immunity early. Reaching a truce with the virus is probably where we’re heading.”
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff