Re: Coronavirus
 

As ever Old Boy you are entirely incorrect. As I say read the basis upon which the vaccines were approved in the United States, European Union or the United Kingdom. Every one referenced - sometimes dubious but now outdated - efficacy against infection. Therefore it's impossible for me to be "unfair" to say they missed stated objectives nor that "herd immunity" has not - indeed will not - be achieved through mass infection nor the present generation of vaccines.

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-re...didate-against

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-ce...ii-trials.html

Herd immunity palpably doesn't work hence "waves" of infection.
I bet the Chinese are laughing at us.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

They’ll perceive their own plan as more economically sustainable.

As much as some pretend we can go back to 2019 the “work from home” workforce aren’t going back to offices en masse with waves every 3-4 months. That creates sub-optimal economic outcomes that aren’t sustainable for us, but nobody wants to wake up to the reality. This drags out the pain because actually “living with the virus” is more than a buzz phrase used by politicians.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We are pretty much "back to 2019" and about as close as we probably will be. We have no restrictions on things opening, no restrictions forcing people to stay at home, wear a mask, be a distance from others, limits in group size, etc etc.



Instead people are advised to stay at home if they think they might have covid. Only a few select groups are advised to test and only in their case if they have symptoms. Everyone else is encouraged not to test.


Working from home is a matter for employers and their staff to decide. A lot of employers are also in favour of some working from home and have reduced office space to account for this (and in the winter months especially this is presumably less heating, lighting costs etc). It's a fallacy to generalise that working from home is less productive and there are some cases where people work better without office distractions and prefer it like there are others who would spend half an hour watching TV instead of working whilst in working hours. Some people may spend some of the time they would have spent travelling to the office and back to work extra hours. But this doesn't need blanket policy and the Government have said people are free to do what they like and there's no reason to restrict going into the office for covid mitigation.



These basically have the same answer.


Ultimately this depends on what your vaccines do and were designed to do.


All three main vaccines were fundamentally based on the same idea. That you could inject the code to an original-strain spike protein into someone, their body would replicate it, and then their immune system create a response. The immune response then means if the body is exposed to the protein again, e.g. via infection, then it will recognise what it is and have antibodies ready or can produce them again.



Presumably this is still the case.


However the spike protein of the virus currently circulating is similar enough to be recognised but only partially. This is due to various mutations which have occurred with other variants too but more markedly with omicron. But the response which is there from either vaccination or previous infection is there still but just not as effective, it's a bit like you saw someone when they were 20 but then not until they were 50, it's the same person but you just take a bit of time to remember who they are because they now have grey hair, wear glasses, and are about 10 stone heavier because of spending middle age in a beer garden after work.



The other specific issue to omicron is that it is more transmissible and in all likelihood requires fewer virus to get infected than previous strains and emits more virus from someone who has it, which is why mitigations such as face coverings have been less effective.



So more virus entering is more the immune system has to cope with at a time when the vaccine memory is a bit suspect because the virus has mutated so the response isn't recognisable.


Vaccines don't usually prevent infection. They just cause an immune response which means that the immune system usually recognises the virus before the body gets taken over by it and you get ill.



It's just in this case we aren't dealing with the same virus as we have been vaccinated against, but a very similar one. This means the body can't respond in time to prevent a milder infection. But the vaccines still cause enough of a response to prevent a more severe one.


Ideally we need a booster with more omicron specificity, which I note Pfizer and Moderna now have, even though that itself is probably for original omicron not BA4/5 which are circulating now. Rolling this out ahead of a potential winter resurgence (even if this is a different omicron as it seems to be) is probably a good idea, rolling out original vaccines is probably less useful.


As for the approval point and preventing disease and transmission, this was probably indeed largely the case on original and alpha, it was only when we started seeing the variants with more vaccine escape mutations such as delta and omicron we started seeing some infection in those who were vaccinated. If the virus hadn't changed we probably wouldn't be talking about that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why is it not sustainable for us to have a work from home workforce? My perception is that most large offices are on a hybrid model. Thursday night is the new Friday and city centre pubs and restaurants on Fridays are now full of tourists.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I hope you will be the last person on here to point out that the poor efficacy of Chinese vaccines compared to their Western peers has strongly influenced China's lockdown policy. This point can't be escaped.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As above, we are pretty much back to 2019, certainly for everyone I know - we do all the things we did then, with no restrictions.

I "worked from home" 1 or 2 days a week in 2019 (more in the winter).
Ive done this since around 2009, in 2012 - 2013 I worked from home full time.

The reason a lot more people didnt was that most companies didnt have the remote connectivity, nor a great desire to provide it, the pandemic forced their hand (to the delight of many). Everyone in my team now works from home all week, and are happy to do so, we still do exactly the same work.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yep, we've gone from 2 days a week in the office to 1 day a fortnight.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What???!

Even you must see that the vaccination programme has drastically reduced the number of people being admitted to hospital.

China is in a difficult place. Too many people remain unvaccinated and this means that the virus will keep coming back periodically, with a dangerously exposed population.

I don’t know why you have a problem with ‘herd immunity’. This is all we have to defeat this awful virus.

Re: Coronavirus
 

People get re-infected as the virus mutates, so attaining herd immunity is a problem. A number of people including your glorious leader have caught Covid on multiple occasions. That hardly speaks to immunity, herd or otherwise, does it?

As Seph has mentioned, the efficacy rates in the Chinese vaccines are the issue in that country.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But if numbers are low, it only takes a small increase to get a big percentage number.

---------- Post added at 09:25 ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 ----------

But as we get infected our immune systems get to recognise Covid type viruses. Unless the mutation is huge there will be some protection and over the herd less dramatic effect.
The common cold was devastating to populations that had never seen it but much less so to most people in Europe or of European origin where it had become endemic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They key word here being 'some'

The new Omicron variants are being reported to shift their focus of attack back to the lungs, which, could in theory lead to more severe disease.

BA.4 & .5 are also being reported as to being able to escape antibodies.


Now, there's limited study on the above, but, to me, it would make sense to have some degree of preparation. Unlike the lead up to March 2020

---------- Post added at 09:42 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------

It also allows for a greater chance of significant mutation.... which potentially puts us right back at square one

Re: Coronavirus
 

This all depends on how vaccines are designed. If they are too specific they are great against the one they are designed for and may work on other variants if the target is still present.
I would guess that a real infection would prime the body to multiple targets on the virus and there would need to be a more major mutation to deny any immune response.
So as we progress getting reinfected we get to recognise various targets and target patterns.
Herd immunity doesn't mean individuals don't get covid or don't get seriously ill or even die. It means the herd survives.

Re: Coronavirus
 

indeed, but the % of the herd that survives depends on the efficacy of both the vaccines & antibody response IF we have a variant that can escape both and causes the same degree of severe illness and is as transmissible as the 'first wave' then we're pretty much back to square one.

very initial studies show that the newer variants appear to match three out of four conditions above.

It's therefore not inconceivable that there comes a time when all four conditions are met. At which point we are.......?