Cable Forum - Coronavirus

You have to incubate the virus and give it space to infect your cells and multiply. Only once it has had time to do this will there be measurable quantities of viral particles in your body fluids that can then infect other people. As this coronavirus is novel to our species we have no latent immunity and the virus rapidly infects and becomes transmissible from an unvaccinated individual.

If you are vaccinated, while the virus is trying to take hold in your body your immune system is attacking it vigorously. Exactly how vigorous this fight-back is, determines whether or not you become infectious. Six out of ten vaccinated people (IIRC) will have a sufficiently robust immune response that the virus never gets a foothold and they therefore never become infectious. The other four will have an immune response but it is weaker; while the virus is under attack, for a while at least it is still able to multiply to the point where the host can pass it on. Those whose immune response is weakest will likely also display significant symptoms, in a few cases requiring hospital treatment and in the rarest cases still dying.

Yep, lower levels of virus in vaccinated patients is the answer (lower viral load is the techy term) Here's a paper showing this with the Pfizer vaccine.

This is less pronounced with the Delta variant, especially some time after vaccination (preprint link)

Paul	15-09-2021 02:18

Re: Coronavirus

On what evidence exactly is the need for boosters being based ?

I was more than happy to take the initial jabs 1 & 2, Im far less convinced about the need for a 3rd.

Chris

15-09-2021 07:41

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36093069)

On what evidence exactly is the need for boosters being based ?

I was more than happy to take the initial jabs 1 & 2, Im far less convinced about the need for a 3rd.

There is evidence of waning immunity with time, which is as you would expect. This leads to an increased risk of serious illness in those whose immune response is weaker. The booster dose will address that, provided it’s given not less than 6 months after the second dose.

At some point in the (hopefully not too distant) future we should arrive at a situation where covid is simply endemic in the population and fairly regular encounters with it in the wild will keep our immune systems primed. Boosters should no longer be necessary for the vast majority of the population from that point. But we’re not there yet.

OLD BOY

15-09-2021 07:57

Re: Coronavirus

We were also told that the scientists would tweak the boosters to deal more effectively with the Delta variant, but it seems to have gone quiet on that, so I doubt that it is ready yet.

Chris

15-09-2021 08:10

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36093072)

We were also told that the scientists would tweak the boosters to deal more effectively with the Delta variant, but it seems to have gone quiet on that, so I doubt that it is ready yet.

Formulations to target Delta directly are in the pipeline. There was some talk about producing alpha-targeted vaccine earlier in the year but that all seems to have gone quiet, presumably because attention switched to the more problematic delta. However Pfizer is saying its original formula produces a good antibody response against delta when given as a booster, so there’s no critical hurry.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...-effectiveness

Carth

15-09-2021 11:07

Re: Coronavirus

We could vaccinate everyone in the UK and give boosters every 3 months, but there would still be people in hospitals that die 'within 28 days of a positive test'.

Still lots of money to be made though, carry on ;)

papa smurf

15-09-2021 11:34

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36093076)

Steady on or you'll trigger the experts to post something from google.

Hugh	15-09-2021 12:07

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36093077)

Steady on or you'll trigger the experts to post something from google.

Heaven forbid people should back up their propositions with researched information, rather than just ask their bruncles... ;)

pip08456

16-09-2021 13:18

Re: Coronavirus

Sage's modelling cock-up.

Quote:

SAGE has had to release an embarrassing mea culpa after getting their summer Covid modelling badly wrong. A new document released by the advice body admits the modelling “did not foresee such rapid transient change in dynamics”, citing possible reasons such as:

The closure of schools for the summer
“A period of warm weather”
Changes in behaviour following the Euros
The pingdemic forcing so many isolations

How the nation’s brainiest boffins did not foresee warm weather during the summer, nor the closure of schools, is pretty astonishing.

https://order-order.com/2021/09/15/s...r-over-summer/

Hugh	16-09-2021 13:33

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36093218)

Sage's modelling cock-up.

https://order-order.com/2021/09/15/s...r-over-summer/

Quote:

Guido doing some highly selective quoting there…

https://assets.publishing.service.go..._Statement.pdf

The original says

Quote:

The modelling did not foresee such rapid transient change in dynamics, with possible reasons including the closure of schools for the summer, changes in behaviour during and following the Euro 2020 football matches, a period of warm weather, and a large proportion of the population isolating as a result of being identified as a contact of a case, as discussed in a previous consensus statement2. Outturn data for hospital admissions over the month of August did, nevertheless, fall within expectations for some scenarios, although hospital occupancy and deaths have been lower than expected under central vaccination assumptions. It is, however, still possible to use these scenarios to understand plausible future trajectories over the next few months into winter.

papa smurf

16-09-2021 13:58

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36093218)

Sage's modelling cock-up.

https://order-order.com/2021/09/15/s...r-over-summer/

It's what we have come to expect.

jonbxx

16-09-2021 14:48

Re: Coronavirus

It's nice for the modelling to be wrong but the actual results being better than modeled than worse! It does show how hard it is to model populations

Chris

16-09-2021 18:33

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36093232)

It's nice for the modelling to be wrong but the actual results being better than modeled than worse! It does show how hard it is to model populations

Given the obvious shortcomings of this particular model I’m not sure this is a good example of complexity ….

jonbxx

17-09-2021 09:02

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36093274)

Given the obvious shortcomings of this particular model I’m not sure this is a good example of complexity ….

True, the behaviours shown over the June/July period weren't expected with older people staying at home more than was thought but hey, that's science, the modelling will be improved and refined to reflect these learnings.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:55.

Page 484 of 569

484

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page