Cable Forum - Coronavirus

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Coronavirus (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33710629)

Not inconceivable but if there is an interim variant that increases/adjusts immunity we aren't really back to step one. Covid is still pretty novel, we are likely to keep seeing waves for some time and need to respond appropriately.

What we can't do is simply lock down and stay that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36126927)

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.......?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36126928)

That's where it gets interesting. Lockdown saved lives pending availability of the Covid vaccines. Yet the economic earthquake that occurred is unlikely to be sustainable in any near future pandemic and thus two things need to be developed (if at all possible) to protect us:

1. Faster vaccine development, e.g. building on MRNA technique;

2. Development of proper home-based working where possible to reduce inter-human contact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36126928)

What we can't do is simply lock down and stay that way.

China has illustrated that even with the most draconian lockdowns, only possible in a totalitaran state, that the virus mearly goes into abeyance until the lockdown is released.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36126929)

In my stupidity, I couldn't piece together the "four conditions" to which you allude,

Notwithstanding this, if "all four conditions are met", then we have a new virus, at which point we are potentially .....

Again, notwithstanding this, humanity has survived a very long time and has got through many epidemics of scale and we're still here, able to knock up a vaccine in a few months and prolly shortening that time too.

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 ----------

That's where it gets interesting. Lockdown saved lives pending availability of the Covid vaccines. Yet the economic earthquake that occurred is unlikely to be sustainable in any near future pandemic and thus two things need to be developed (if at all possible) to protect us:

1. Faster vaccine development, e.g. building on MRNA technique;

2. Development of proper home-based working where possible to reduce inter-human contact.

Vaccine Efficacy
Antibody Efficacy
Transmissibility
% chance of severe illness/death

the above are the four conditions to which i was referring.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/22/h...ine/index.html

'However, Covid-19 vaccination is still expected to provide substantial protection against severe disease, and vaccine makers are working on updated shots that might elicit a stronger immune response against the variants.'

'Expected' being the key word to my mind, good news also on updated shots but again it's a 'might'

I'm in no way advocating a return to the lockdowns we had, BUT dependent on mutations it may well be that they become a reality.

https://www.pfizer.com/news/articles/how_do_viruses_mutate_and_what_it_means_for_a_vacc ine

The above link is an amazingly easy to understand explanation of how viruses mutate, comparing also the mutation behaviour of Influenza vs Covid.

The article also brings into focus the term "novel" as applied to Covid - as in it's too new for scientists to know everything about it; but it is slower to mutate than influenza.

REALLY WORTH READING.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36126934)

The reality would probably need another solution than lockdowns. Given that they cause more damage than letting the virus spread in some situations the scenario that we shut the country down for a few months should only ever be used when we don't have an alternative at all.

Knowledge has partially refined since March 2020 but even then we knew that when infected with covid a lot of people had mild or no symptoms which didn't progress and that it was a more severe disease for some, and that those who had certain medical conditions were more likely to be at risk of serious disease.

That scenario is still the case, even with the current mutations of the virus, and with a lot of people having significant immunity to a covid variant which is likely to offer some degree of protection in most people.

Clearly there is a convincing reason not to allow the virus to spread unchecked in groups of people who have no immunity because they can't be vaccinated for some reason or their immune system hasn't responded to the vaccine, and they also have other conditions which may make infection with covid or indeed anything else a severe issue. Likely such people include the immunocompromised who will have had these issues before covid and would have to manage this situation in a cold season or a flu season or norovirus outbreak etc etc. And they will need to continue to take care for the rest of their lives as was also the case without covid, as it's uncivilised to keep them locked up the same way as it's uncivilised to restrict activities of healthy people to preserve them.

There will be covid outbreaks as it evolves and as it transitions to be endemic. Vaccine immunity (even if it doesn't wane) is going to be partial as the virus changes, and it will no doubt reach a point where topping up with original Pfizer or Moderna jabs will not achieve anything further (we may already be there) so if there is a BA.1 booster this is likely to provide better protection against BA.5 or any similar future evolutions so should be offered to everyone (though not mandatory, and to those older/CEV first).

But we will need to deal with it as we stand now realistically as it's not going to stop evolving. Just existing immunity through having it and being vaccinated will make subsequent infections and reinfections less serious.

We have had original vaccine escape on several, Beta variant started this but wasn't as transmissible as others, Delta was and had escape, before Omicron, there were a few others too but they didn't take off either. Fortunately the disease is milder now but even if it wasn't restrictions would only slow it down, you have to have an end point and unfortunately this doesn't look like a lockdown is going to make it go away. We were almost covid-free in terms of test figures by July 2020 but then as we let people go on holiday to places which weren't, it got back in again, you can't stop this really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36126866)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36126927)

Getting our booster vaccines that incorporate the latest variants.

It’s not the end of the world yet.

---------- Post added at 17:00 ---------- Previous post was at 16:56 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36126933)

China has illustrated that even with the most draconian lockdowns, only possible in a totalitaran state, that the virus mearly goes into abeyance until the lockdown is released.

Absolutely agreed. I’ve been saying this from the get-go. It was clear very early on that lockdowns only delayed the spread of the virus, but for some reason I can’t fathom, some people scoffed at this at the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36126972)

It must still be spreading as we have 300+a deaths per week from it. That's not immunity.

If it wasn't spreading, it would die out and we would have no deaths. It needs hosts to live in.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36126975)

You’re not getting it, Andrew. The vaccinations are drastically reducing the impact of the virus on the population. That is what we are talking about when we refer to herd immunity.

Nobody is saying the vaccinations will make the virus disappear without trace. And nobody is claiming the vaccinations will stop you from getting infected. Indeed, if anything, far more people are infected now than previously. However, the impact is relatively minimal compared with before the vaccination programme got under way.

I think we are actually agreeing on the facts but using different language to describe it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36126975)

300+ deaths a week of people who tested positive for covid in the 28 days preceding their death.

They don't have to have died because they had covid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nffc (Post 36126977)

300+ deaths a week of people who tested positive for covid in the 28 days preceding their death.

They don't have to have died because they had covid.

Correct. Many of them are dying of something else. It’s also worth reminding ourselves that people are catching Covid in hospital while being treated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nffc (Post 36126977)

300+ deaths a week of people who tested positive for covid in the 28 days preceding their death.

They don't have to have died because they had covid.

I'm referencing Daily deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate by date of death and not the Testing positive for Covid 28 days preceding their death measure.

Per my attached link, it's currently 309.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36126979)

Death “with” not death “of”

Still a pointless metric.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36127003)

Death “with” not death “of”

Still a pointless metric.

It certainly needs more clarification as to whether covid was a major contributor to the death. Unfortunately, this is more subjective to be statistically useful as different doctors would have different opinions.

Hence the blanket cut offs.

It's understandable but context is always necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36126972)

It depends what you think ‘herd immunity’ means.

It doesn’t mean total immunity, it means resistance to the spread of the disease. There’s no doubt the the vaccination programme has achieved that.

---------- Post added at 16:56 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------

Getting our booster vaccines that incorporate the latest variants.

It’s not the end of the world yet.

---------- Post added at 17:00 ---------- Previous post was at 16:56 ----------

Absolutely agreed. I’ve been saying this from the get-go. It was clear very early on that lockdowns only delayed the spread of the virus, but for some reason I can’t fathom, some people scoffed at this at the time.

You're right, it's absolutely not the end of the world yet, but nor as many profess or believe is the situation completely over.

we don't know how long it will take to reengineer and test updated booster shots.

The virus can mutate much quicker than we can react, the more people infected the greater the probability of a mutation....

I haven't seen anything by the government as to what the plans are should there be shift to a vaccine/antibody escape variant that can causes more serious illness and/or death and which either retains it's rate of transmission or has an increased rate of transmission.

To ignore the fact that the above is an entirely plausible is no better than two and a bit years ago when Boris said that it would be over in a few weeks

The government would be wise to remember the 7 Ps but, they won't