Coronavirus

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Paul

Not really, its over four months old and written before we even lifted restrictions.

I stopped reading after this ;

I am quite sure the point made about vaccine escape in a (mostly) vaccinated population is as valid today as it was 4 months ago. You stopped reading it because it said what you did not want to hear. An interesting research technique

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I am quite sure the point made about vaccine escape in a (mostly) vaccinated population is as valid today as it was 4 months ago. You stopped reading it because it said what you did not want to hear. An interesting research technique

The article is wrong on just about everything.

The decision, and the way it has been presented, repeats a pattern of foolishly promising an outcome when dealing with a highly infectious agent

wrong

And a new modelling study shows an impending surge of hospitalizations, although the exact numbers are highly uncertain.

wrong

Even with lower hospitalization and fatality rates, current trends in the UK are likely to strain healthcare systems and lead to substantial public health consequences,

Wrong - well no more than any other year.

even among the vaccinated population, there will be more hospitalizations and deaths as infections rise.

Wrong - hospitalisation and deaths did not rise with infections they stayed fairly static

He warns that forgoing minor interventions might end up necessitating a return to major disruptions and lockdowns later on.

English thinks that masks should remain compulsory in shops and on public transport

wrong

some forecast up to 100,000 new infections per day over the summer

never happened

I read it all, and it was all bollocks.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The article is wrong on just about everything.



wrong



wrong



Wrong - well no more than any other year.



Wrong - hospitalisation and deaths did not rise with infections they stayed fairly static



wrong


never happened

I read it all, and it was all bollocks.

Correct.

[ianch99]

The resident CF virologists have spoken! What more is there to be said? Who needs experts anyway

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by ianch99

The resident CF virologists have spoken! What more is there to be said? Who needs experts anyway

This year's expert . Is next century s fool. Just look at medical practices from hundred years ago

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

The resident CF virologists have spoken! What more is there to be said? Who needs experts anyway

All I have done is the read four month old article, measured it against what actually happened and judged it as bollocks. I don’t need to be virologist to do that.

You are of course free to point out all the accurate forecasts the article got right.

Originally Posted by ianch99

You stopped reading it because it said what you did not want to hear. An interesting research technique

Nope I stopped becasue its complete nonsense, much like your post.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Pierre

All I have done is the read four month old article, measured it against what actually happened and judged it as bollocks. I don’t need to be virologist to do that.

You are of course free to point out all the accurate forecasts the article got right.

N.i is doing really well following advise

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Itshim

N.i is doing really well following advise

if English is your first language, please do expand on that.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Paul

Nope I stopped becasue its complete nonsense, much like your post.

Disagree. Not liking something does not make it wrong. If you can actually read what I posted, it referred to the fear of vaccine escape from a vaccinated population. I was replying to spiderplant 's post where he said:

You are right that more infections increase the chances of mutation, but there wouldn't be an evolutionary advantage to the virus developing vaccine resistance if there weren't plenty of vaccinated people to infect.

But hey, let's not let what I actually posted get in the way of a good rant, eh?

---------- Post added at 22:55 ---------- Previous post was at 22:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

All I have done is the read four month old article, measured it against what actually happened and judged it as bollocks. I don’t need to be virologist to do that.

You are of course free to point out all the accurate forecasts the article got right.

Dr Pierre I presume?

Here's another interesting article on the subject of vaccine escape since this is your specialist area. After all, it was vaccine escape that I was discussing, nothing else but I guess you knew that

Vaccine escape in a heterogeneous population: insights for SARS-CoV-2 from a simple model

As a counter measure to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic there has been swift development and clinical trial assessment of candidate vaccines, with subsequent deployment as part of mass vaccination campaigns. However, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has demonstrated the ability to mutate and develop variants, which can modify epidemiological properties and the potentially also the effectiveness of vaccines.

The widespread deployment of highly effective vaccines may rapidly exert selection pressure on the SARS-CoV-2 virus directed towards mutations that escape the vaccine induced immune response. This is particularly concerning whilst infection is widespread. By developing and analysing a mathematical model of two population groupings with differing vulnerability and contact rates, we explore the impact of the deployment of vaccine amongst the population on R, cases, disease abundance and vaccine escape pressure.

The results from this model illustrate two insights (i) vaccination aimed at reducing prevalence could be more effective at reducing disease than directly vaccinating the vulnerable; (ii) the highest risk for vaccine escape can occur at intermediate levels of vaccination. This work demonstrates a key principle that the careful targeting of vaccines towards particular population groups could reduce disease as much as possible whilst limiting the risk of vaccine escape.

I hope you agree that this scenario is especially relevant for us today in country? I realise your papers are not yet published but if you could share any draft copies, we would all be grateful.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Disagree. Not liking something does not make it wrong. If you can actually read what I posted, it referred to the fear of vaccine escape from a vaccinated population. I was replying to spiderplant 's post where he said:



But hey, let's not let what I actually posted get in the way of a good rant, eh?

---------- Post added at 22:55 ---------- Previous post was at 22:46 ----------



Dr Pierre I presume?

Here's another interesting article on the subject of vaccine escape since this is your specialist area. After all, it was vaccine escape that I was discussing, nothing else but I guess you knew that

Vaccine escape in a heterogeneous population: insights for SARS-CoV-2 from a simple model



I hope you agree that this scenario is especially relevant for us today in country? I realise your papers are not yet published but if you could share any draft copies, we would all be grateful.

As I clearly stated, and I know it was a very feeble attempt at sarcasm from you, I am not a Dr so don’t address me as such.

In regards to your original bollocks article and the one you post here. Especially regarding your first bollocks article that was wrong about everything. Why would this subsequent post offer anything else of interest? A new variant may well appear at some point but there isn’t one yet after 4 months and if one appeared one, two, three or even four months from now, could you trace it back to July 19th?

I don’t have any papers published, great sarcasm attempt again btw, but the ones you have cited aren’t great either.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

As I clearly stated, and I know it was a very feeble attempt at sarcasm from you, I am not a Dr so don’t address me as such.

In regards to your original bollocks article and the one you post here. Especially regarding your first bollocks article that was wrong about everything. Why would this subsequent post offer anything else of interest? A new variant may well appear at some point but there isn’t one yet after 4 months and if one appeared one, two, three or even four months from now, could you trace it back to July 19th?

I don’t have any papers published, great sarcasm attempt again btw, but the ones you have cited aren’t great either.

The irony.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=8162

Content to dish out sarcastic insults but unable to take them in return.

We all know you have no papers published but thanks for the clarification. As you tell us often enough you don’t care about the subject matter so it’s impossible to imagine you’d devote such time typing away at a keyboard about it. Beyond your extensive and insightful engagement with this thread of course!

In response to your post however I will acknowledge your familiarity with being wrong about everything. So ianch99 should give your post some weight on that basis.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=8162

Content to dish out sarcastic insults but unable to take them in return.

Makes two of us then, by the looks of it.

Okay everyone settle down.Perhaps some of you need to get away from the keyboard/mobile before we have any infractions issued.

[nffc]

Going back to the paper Paul amongst others have said was nonsense.


It is only looking at it with the benefit of hindsight that we can of course reach this conclusion.


By this stage we knew similar to what we do now. The virus was still out there, still circulating at higher levels, and we'd still been vaccinating as many people as we could.



We knew the vaccines would probably hold out against hospitalisations but there wasn't enough data to know this for sure with Delta, that was presumably the main point of the 3 week delay, but the intention to open up provided nothing went horribly wrong was probably always there once Hancock was replaced.

It was a calculated risk but let's not forget the timing also coincided with school closures which would in itself have reduced spread of the virus in an environment where not only most people weren't vaccinated (and still aren't) but also spent a long time together in the same room. It's still likely the case if a kid turns up to school with covid that most of the class will get it, those who haven't already, that is (and this is where it will end). The fact spread amongst adults with everything open didn't then kick off at all implies that the vaccines are holding it enough, and that the measures may not have been as effective as you think.



It is true that a virus with a more transmissible advantage selectively will out compete and if something like Beta developed the transmissibility of Delta with the vaccine escape as well, then you would be looking at trouble, but this doesn't seem to be showing any signs of happening, in fact it's probably slowing down a bit on that since we had Alpha come up about this time last year and then in the spring we had Delta and not really much since (this Delta plus just seems to be a more transmissible version of Delta), and we're not actually seeing other variants able to out compete them. Again this is a fact we didn't know then, didn't know that is how it would turn out, and the risks mentioned were possible.


You can't look back at predictions really with the benefit of hindsight - 3 weeks to protect the NHS.