Re: Coronavirus
 

It will be a combination of (re)infections and vaccines that means our bodies will "learn" and remember CV type viruses even if they do mutate. If similar enough we will have some protection and we will learn that new "stage".


What we mustn't have is fear because that allows those in charge to bring in rules/legislation etc that we normally won't tolerate and some of those will be very hard to remove later. Those with power like to exercise it and keep it.


1. Remote/hybrid working - this will (hopefully) remain.
2. Travel testing - this needs to be better focussed, cheaper and much faster. It will be really hard to do if we go back to millions of Brits heading to the Med for a week in the sun. When/where/how do you test and what do you do with non-negative tests?


Really unless we get a mutation that is so different to what has been experienced in the past and leads to high hospitalisations/deaths etc that some action in needed we really are going to have to learn to live with this. It will become less novel, population immunity will improve and develop.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Variant c.1.2 whilst not a variant of concern is under heavy research due to its potential for vaccine & immune escape. Should that be the case and should it become the dominant strain we are to a degree back at square one.

1. Remote/Hybrid working where possible is here to stay, it's as simple as that. I've attended multiple CIO/CISO conferences in the past twelve months. of all the CIO & CISO's that have either spoken at events or those that I've spoken to individually, I would say around seventy percent are now focused squarely on remote/hybrid working and the challenges faced by it.

2. Testing will get cheaper, quicker & more accurate. New tests are constantly being developed and existing tests will probably be refined and simplified

In the future i imagine it will be similar to using the egates for passport control

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think he's spot on.

I suppose every variant of every virus has that potential but as I've asked before:- Can anyone name any virus in the history of man that has done this? I still await a reply.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think some of it's about right but it's being based on what we already know. Look at the changes from the Alpha to Delta variant which have occured in a period of just over a year.

Parts of the world are acting as petri dishes for potential new variants be that by relaxed restrictions or a lack of progress in vaccinations.

Quite simply, the more cases in circulation, the more chance of variants, the more chance of variants, the greater chance of one that becomes significantly more difficult to deal with.

The above doesn't mean i'm in favour of reimposing the restrictions that have changed most people's lives in the past eighteen months. But we also shouldn't discard their potential necessity just yet.




To answer your question? Documented? probably not as for large periods of history we didn't actually possess the knowledge to determine. Actually occurred ? more than likely

Re: Coronavirus
 

This one?

There’s already evidence of reduced immunity vs variants, and one poor sod who has been infected by original covid, alpha covid and delta covid despite being double vaccinated between alpha and delta.

Will immunity drop overnight from high levels to zero, probably not, so long as booster vaccinations track the virus over time. Major economies are already betting big on this with huge amounts of mRNA vaccines procured through to 2023. You only need to chop away 20-30% from 70% a couple of times to hit near zero effectiveness.

Re: Coronavirus
 

In the history of vaccines the knowledge of any virus variant to evade vaccination would be known as it would have happened and been recorded.
To date I know of none that has unless you do.

Reduced immunity is not vaccine evasion. Try again. The covid19 vaccines have never purported to prevent infection, just reduce the severity, need for hospitalisation and as a consequence death.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You can only reduce immunity so many times before you have none. Hence why countries are intending to procure booster vaccinations in the order of 2 to 3 times their population bases.

I have no real reason to “try again”. The evidence is there for anyone to reasonably consider.

I’m sure every vaccine press release I saw in January quoted efficacy against infection but keep moving the goalposts all you wish. The head in sand approach hasn’t served anyone well in the pandemic, I see no reason for it to have better prospects in 2022.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Your original question was

'I suppose every variant of every virus has that potential but as I've asked before:- Can anyone name any virus in the history of man that has done this? I still await a reply.'

The above was what i gave my answer too, now you change your question

Secondly and as per my initial post c.1.2 is under investigation for both reduced immunity and also potential for vaccine escape. So I'm not entirely sure what you would like me to 'try harder' on ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The fact that hospital admissions were low was a factual comment.

The reason hospital admissions went up was that the Kent variant came along and was much more infectious. Nobody realised that at the time.

Your little quotes rarely give any context.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So, something unknown came along which completely changed things, and that won’t happen again…

Re: Coronavirus
 

There are the known knowns, and there are the unknown knowns. :D

Hugh, you cannot base policy decisions on what you don’t know. It is the case with everything that things can change. When that happens, you adjust the policy.

There is no other way to do this. Unless your name is Mr Hindsight, you cannot possibly know for sure which of a list of possible unknowns will occur or whether any of them will occur.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, but you can do risk analysis - there are lots of research/studies showing that the variants lessen the efficacy of the vaccines, so you would plan to mitigate if this increased.

Not say "we don’t know what might happen, so let’s not bother…"

Your definition of risk analysis is "this won’t reduce the deaths, just delay them, so let it happen…".

Re: Coronavirus
 

Interesting selective quoting, as you well know there's also known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Thus rendering the rest of your statement true to form, incorrect.