Coronavirus

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jfman

If updated vaccines are rolled out, and not two variants out of date by the time they are, then yes they do have the potential to be a game changer.

Two variants out of date isn't much though.


It's certainly much better than two years out of date.


As the virus has evolved the variants have had more and more mutations on the spike proteins where the vaccine response is targeted. For the earlier ones like Alpha and Beta (which had vaccine escape too but was not as transmissible) the changes were relatively few, then we get one where it kind of works but not as good at stopping people getting covid (Delta), then we end up with one which is heavily mutated and appears more like a cold and also the immune system recognises it less because of this so it can swerve the vaccine or immunity response.


So BA2, BA4 and BA5 are all responsible (mainly 2 and 5) for subsequent rises in infection since the original omicron however they aren't seemingly considered distinct enough from it to have their own lineage and Greek letter assigned to them, they're still classed as omicron variants, I don't think BA5 is that different in terms of spike protein from BA1 (to call it that) in order to make a BA1 vaccine markedly different in terms of response against BA5 and anything unless it in itself is markedly different by the time they roll it out. You'd probably expect 2 or maybe 3 more covid spikes due to variants again by the end of the year.



But omicron specific Pfizer or Moderna jabs are definitely the way forward in terms of boosters as the difference between that and BA5 is much less and will probably give a much better top up response than another shot of the same thing which will only really work if antibody/t-cell response has waned in the intervening time period AND topping up the SAME response is considered beneficial. It's a bit like going on the pull wearing the same skirt which you looked wonderful in 2 years ago but you've put on 3 stone since and it's now a bit tight though it still looks great.

Originally Posted by jfman

Sunak as Chancellor had already questioned the expenditure involved, raising the question of whether we genuinely mean learn to live with the virus and not just the pretend it’s 2019 approach.

Not a real difference though is there? OK some things are going to change more like maybe a few more people wearing masks if they have to go out with a cold or fewer people just not carrying on with everything at all if they're feeling ill, and maybe a few more workplaces being at least some-days amenable to staff working from home not being in the office every day, but I think most things and most people are as close to "2019" as they probably will ever be. And so they should be because unless there's a reason to keep hiding under the stairs then things need to go on.

Originally Posted by jfman

If we won’t even pay for that there’s going to be nothing in terms of improving ventilation in public buildings.

It's a better solution than anything else.


But public buildings have their own maintenance budget and air purifiers can't be too expensive.

Originally Posted by jfman

Spying apps? I must have missed those.

NHS Covid-19 app, tracking people's location and proximity to others to judge if someone might have been close to someone with the virus?



QR Codes and manual check in to businesses?

Did you spend 2021 under a tree?

Originally Posted by jfman

Masks are fundamentally not a trading restriction, especially in non-optional settings like public transport, healthcare settings, etc.

They are. If people are reluctant to go somewhere because they have to wear a mask, then the masks are restricting trade. If it makes their enjoyment of what they're doing not enjoyable because they have to wear a mask they won't do it.


Like if you pay £20 for a concert ticket or whatever have to wear a mask and can't see it because the mask wearing steams up your glasses and you can't see with them off, or if it means your breathing is hampered by wearing it so you spend most of the time not enjoying it? (Well, of course, that's assuming restrictions allowed concerts).


Or if people don't want to go to London by train because that involves 3 hours on a carriage in the heat with a mask on and take the car instead, the train companies lose out on the money there.


Add into that the stigma and bad treatment people who are exempt from wearing a face covering have had to put up with from people who it is not their business to challenge this and take matters into their own hands, there is a reason why that is illegal and it is because it breaks disability laws, it is none of anyone else's business why someone is or isn't wearing a mask. Some people of course would avoid the argument and not do it. That restricts trade too.


Plus they don't work anyway. Not unless they're FFP2 type masks used properly.

Originally Posted by jfman

Where and how you tax people is a legitimate point, and something that needs approached anyway with online trade killing off the high street.

It already has been for about the last 20 years anyway. Amazon especially has killed off plenty of high street book and record stores, and countless more independent ones, it's largely just chains like waterstones these days.

Originally Posted by jfman

Similarly with the virus running unabated a sizeable proportion of the public either will not ever, or for the majority of the time, return to city centre offices. Something we are lagging behind our EU counterparts with.

Hybrid working is something companies benefit from too - if they have fewer staff in the office, that can mean they need less office space. And on days when people aren't in the office it saves on the electricity, heating, etc from not having staff physically in the workplace.



A lot of companies will still embrace it even after the virus. It's just sped things up a bit.

Originally Posted by jfman

This impacts on the economy if they all take personal responsibility and hide away on Microsoft Teams with an entire service sector under threat - a situation exacerbated by the cost of living crisis.

That's a management issue.


If staff are underperforming because they are working from home that's down to individuals and managers to sort out.



A lot of jobs can be done equally or better from any location including home.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nffc

Plus they don't work anyway. Not unless they're FFP2 type masks used properly.

So they do work?

I'm unaware of a requirement to wear masks at concerns, seated in a pub, or doing anything that could even be considered remotely enjoyable.

For every person who won't go out but for the need to wear a mask that's equally offset by those who refuse to engage with the old economy - continuing to work from home, voluntarily restricting their own activities. So this is not the zero sum game that you claim it to be.

It already has been for about the last 20 years anyway. Amazon especially has killed off plenty of high street book and record stores, and countless more independent ones, it's largely just chains like waterstones these days.

It has indeed, which is why I've stated it necessary in any case. Not just to offset winners/losers in the pandemic.

Hybrid working is something companies benefit from too - if they have fewer staff in the office, that can mean they need less office space. And on days when people aren't in the office it saves on the electricity, heating, etc from not having staff physically in the workplace.

A lot of companies will still embrace it even after the virus. It's just sped things up a bit.

indeed, but it leaves us some distance from the 2019 economy by simply pretending it is 2019.

That's a management issue.

If staff are underperforming because they are working from home that's down to individuals and managers to sort out.

A lot of jobs can be done equally or better from any location including home.

It's not solely a management issue - employers have responsibilities to their staff, and 2019 HR policies are wholly insufficient for a pandemic that someone could reasonably catch the virus twice or three times in one year. Nor are business continuity plans based on whole teams being off sick at once.

It's a massive economic issue that pretending it is 2019 will not resolve - hence my questioning of where is the learning.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jfman

That doesn't matter - if required the restrictions would just become stricter to compensate. Closing additional businesses, public transport, reducing opening hours or even introducing a curfew would be options. Nobody instructed to work from home is going to rush into an office, for example. If the pub is closed there's nowhere to go.

It's true to an extent, But closing businesses is pretty much all they can do which will be largely complied with (even then we had businesses staying open and defying these orders).



if the pub's closed, why not come round for a few pints tomorrow?



The government wants everyone tucked up by 9pm but some people can't do that and they aren't able to police it anyway (won't the police have to be tucked up by 9 too)?


In fact no-one's going to stop it and no-one's going to care if we cram 20 people into a massive disco party in a terrace right? Well, not at least until after it's happened anyway?



And then what if it was a work gathering?

Originally Posted by jfman

It'd be interesting to see if that held up against a more severe variant and waning vaccine effectiveness.

Such a thing doesn't exist and doesn't show a sign of existing.


Over time the disease hasn't got worse in terms of symptoms, whether by the natural course of the virus, or by exposure to infection and vaccination, it's got weaker if anything. Vaccine escape is always partial especially when we're using vaccines tailored to a variant which was circulating almost 3 years ago.


If they needed to, they could always make another AZ type vaccine with a different spike protein and whack it through the emergency approvals and get into arms quickly.



Plus the previous immunity would no doubt be blunted not eroded.

Originally Posted by jfman

I doubt many are in that much of a rush to go out and die on the minimum wage in a cost of living crisis.

I'm sure you'd need them to when your bins aren't emptied, your takeaway food doesn't turn up, your Amazon delivery or post isn't there, and there's no-one to open Tesco, because everyone is at home scared of Covid.

Originally Posted by jfman

I'm sure they'd welcome 80% salary to sit at home with their feet up again.

Paid for by the government, so more taxes and more increase on the "cost of living" aka inflation caused by covid response making people sit at home doing nothing and being paid for it with nothing to spend it on. That's going to make it better, right?

---------- Post added at 22:24 ---------- Previous post was at 22:17 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

So they do work?

Entirely dependent on the equipment and how it's used.


Wearing a bit of old cloth and not washing it between uses or putting it on tables, in pockets with your phone or hankie or whatever when you're not wearing it. That's not benefiting anything at all and even if the slim chance the cloth stopped the virus at all as soon as it touched anything else it'd spread contamination. As would re-using single use masks.



Wearing and using properly including before and after use, a proper surgical device, will have more effect than that, and will probably reduce transmission by more.


But then you have to think about why surgeons wear masks? It isn't to stop viruses.

Originally Posted by jfman

I'm unaware of a requirement to wear masks at concerns, seated in a pub, or doing anything that could even be considered remotely enjoyable.

Except it was where we had indoor mask mandates.



In places of worship, museums, theatres, concert halls, you had to unless exempt.


Pubs were always given special treatment even though it was utter nonsense in that you could always take a mask off when seated. But since they were restricted to seated and table service only explain the benefit of that?

Originally Posted by jfman

For every person who won't go out but for the need to wear a mask that's equally offset by those who refuse to engage with the old economy - continuing to work from home, voluntarily restricting their own activities. So this is not the zero sum game that you claim it to be.

I'm claiming what? where?


I haven't "not" done anything because of covid since, well, we were legally allowed to "do" it again, and certainly not since getting vaccinated.


Working from home is between employees and employers. If a company only wants their staff in the office 1 day a week, then are you saying that working from home on the other four isn't "engaging with the new economy"? Don't forget that working from home also reduces the load on transport and net-zero benefits from people not commuting?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nffc

It's true to an extent, But closing businesses is pretty much all they can do which will be largely complied with (even then we had businesses staying open and defying these orders).

if the pub's closed, why not come round for a few pints tomorrow?

Nobody invites the whole pub round - hence it reduces the number of interactions to closer social circles.

The government wants everyone tucked up by 9pm but some people can't do that and they aren't able to police it anyway (won't the police have to be tucked up by 9 too)?

I think you have misunderstood what a curfew is.

In fact no-one's going to stop it and no-one's going to care if we cram 20 people into a massive disco party in a terrace right? Well, not at least until after it's happened anyway?

And then what if it was a work gathering?

The inability of police to police doesn't stop the deterrent effect for the vast majority of law abiding citizens.

Such a thing doesn't exist and doesn't show a sign of existing.

I'd be interested in what (if any) scientific evidence implies it's doesn't show a sign of existing. I think it was clear the premise of my post was hypothetical in any case.

Over time the disease hasn't got worse in terms of symptoms, whether by the natural course of the virus, or by exposure to infection and vaccination, it's got weaker if anything.

Has it?

Vaccine escape is always partial especially when we're using vaccines tailored to a variant which was circulating almost 3 years ago.

Is it always partial? Is there a scientific base for that or is it possible a virus mutates to the extent it completely evades all immunity?

If they needed to, they could always make another AZ type vaccine with a different spike protein and whack it through the emergency approvals and get into arms quickly.

Plus the previous immunity would no doubt be blunted not eroded.

I'm sure you'd need them to when your bins aren't emptied, your takeaway food doesn't turn up, your Amazon delivery or post isn't there, and there's no-one to open Tesco, because everyone is at home scared of Covid.

Perhaps so, but I didn't state my need I stated their intent.

Paid for by the government, so more taxes and more increase on the "cost of living" aka inflation caused by covid response making people sit at home doing nothing and being paid for it with nothing to spend it on. That's going to make it better, right?

Yes, you're right, they'd all prefer to go out and die for capitalism and keep inflation low.

The inflation comparison is a red herring - it's up to the Government to use the levers of the tax system to balance things out between the winners and losers.

I'm claiming what? where?

I haven't "not" done anything because of covid since, well, we were legally allowed to "do" it again, and certainly not since getting vaccinated.

Then you are not who I was referring to my post - I'd be wary of applying your own personal circumstances to a population of 66 million people with varying working circumstances and health situations.

Working from home is between employees and employers. If a company only wants their staff in the office 1 day a week, then are you saying that working from home on the other four isn't "engaging with the new economy"? Don't forget that working from home also reduces the load on transport and net-zero benefits from people not commuting?

I'm not saying it's not a benefit - merely that the gap between 'living with the virus' on an ongoing basis and the 2019 economy remains significant, and even attempts to reconcile the two by pretending the virus isn't an issue are doomed to failure.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

That doesn't matter - if required the restrictions would just become stricter to compensate. Closing additional businesses, public transport, reducing opening hours or even introducing a curfew would be options. Nobody instructed to work from home is going to rush into an office, for example. If the pub is closed there's nowhere to go. The presumption that the public would act in bad faith has been consistently disproven, and while the Tories credibility is near zero, if hospitals filled up they'd feel otherwise.

Not going to happen.

It'd be interesting to see if that held up against a more severe variant and waning vaccine effectiveness. I doubt many are in that much of a rush to go out and die on the minimum wage in a cost of living crisis. I'm sure they'd welcome 80% salary to sit at home with their feet up again.

Not going to happen

straw man army!

In short…….there won’t be any more lockdowns, no matter how desperate you are for one.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

In short…….there won’t be any more lockdowns, no matter how desperate you are for one.

Three straw men in one post. I challenge you - like OB - to find a recent post (e.g. today) where I advocated for one?

It's not so much learning to live with the virus as learning to read that's the challenge in here tonight. I get it - the butthurt is palpable among the Boris acolytes. His three claimed successes, Brexit, Covid and the other one I forget are failures. The economy is in tatters. However that doesn't entitle you to wilfully misinterpret my posts.

Originally Posted by jfman

Brexit, Covid and the other one I forget are failures.

These are just your opinions, not facts.
You cant even remember the third one, yet you tag "it" a failure.

Originally Posted by jfman

The economy is in tatters.

See above.

Originally Posted by jfman

However that doesn't entitle you to wilfully misinterpret my posts.

Ah yes, of course, you are very careful not to directly state it, just imply it.

[jfman]

Even the leading Conservative party candidates for leadership admit - up to two decades - of economic failure. I hardly consider it controversial for me to say so.

I add you to those I challenge to outline where I advocate lockdown (or even where the sum of what I suggest adds up to it). It's just not there - it's a wilful misinterpretation of my posts.

Do I think there's intermediate steps that, from time to time, might be proportionate? That's probably in there - depending on circumstances of course. If not taking action there's an acknowledgement that there's consequences - economically - to that too. Again, I'm not being controversial there. Sick days add up at the most basic level, and that has impact on the provision of public services, essential services provided by the private sector, and others. In particular those sectors already decimated by the end of freedom of movement.

Pierre hypothesised that restrictions wouldn't work - that's the only point where I've directly addressed the subject. Framed proportionately around what the state could do, and that rational actors within it wouldn't be as willing as he suggests to risk themselves in the face of a more severe variant. The reality is the vast majority of human interaction is entirely incidental in a way that restrictions could enforce even if groups of individuals flouted the rules (which Pierre indeed admits he has been since the start - so that's not new).

[OLD BOY]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/15...hael-fabricant

[EXTRACT]

The study referred to an analytical model that is described as "the most comprehensive assessment of excess mortality due to COVID-19 to date".

After factoring in excess deaths during the pandemic from all causes, the UK is now 29th in Europe and ninth in Western Europe in terms of death rate from the deadly pathogen.

Clinical Epidemiologist Dr Raghob Ali tweeted: "Far from the UK having the worst death rate in Europe, or even Western Europe, as many still think, it is actually 29th in Europe and 9th in Western Europe.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Not going to happen.



Not going to happen


In short…….there won’t be any more lockdowns, no matter how desperate you are for one.

We never imagined needing to lockdown prior to Covid , suggesting it will never be needed again is somewhat ignorant.

It’s entirely possible there will be another variant of covid which means we will need to unfortunately start all over again….

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/15...hael-fabricant

[EXTRACT]

The study referred to an analytical model that is described as "the most comprehensive assessment of excess mortality due to COVID-19 to date".

After factoring in excess deaths during the pandemic from all causes, the UK is now 29th in Europe and ninth in Western Europe in terms of death rate from the deadly pathogen.

Clinical Epidemiologist Dr Raghob Ali tweeted: "Far from the UK having the worst death rate in Europe, or even Western Europe, as many still think, it is actually 29th in Europe and 9th in Western Europe.

Actual source material from four months ago, like your link…

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...796-3/fulltext

Findings Although reported COVID-19 deaths between Jan 1, 2020, and Dec 31, 2021, totalled 5·94 million worldwide, we estimate that 18·2 million (95% uncertainty interval 17·1–19·6) people died worldwide because of the COVID-19 pandemic (as measured by excess mortality) over that period.

The report state that it estimates three times the reported number of people died from COVID worldwide.

The actual difference for the U.K. between reported and estimated was 3%…

There is no "league table" in that paper that shows the U.K. was 9th/29th…

If you look at the table from the report in this link, it shows that for Western Europe, there were 15 countries in that table of that had lower estimated rates than the U.K..

https://www.thelancet.com/action/sho...2821%2902796-3

Estimated excess mortality rate per 100,000

Austria 107.5
Cyprus 32.2
Denmark 94.1
Finland 80.8
France 124.2
Germany 120.5
Iceland 47·8
Ireland 12·5
Israel 51·0
Luxembourg 89·2
Malta 89·9
Monaco 74·4
Norway 7·2
Sweden 91·2
Switzerland 93·1
United Kingdom 126·8

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

We never imagined needing to lockdown prior to Covid , suggesting it will never be needed again is somewhat ignorant.

It’s entirely possible there will be another variant of covid which means we will need to unfortunately start all over again….

Not going to happen.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

We never imagined needing to lockdown prior to Covid , suggesting it will never be needed again is somewhat ignorant.

It’s entirely possible there will be another variant of covid which means we will need to unfortunately start all over again….

It is feasible that there could be a variant which not only erodes vaccine or infection acquired immunity equal or more than the current ones; it is also feasible that there could be a variant which produces more severe disease than the omicron lineage (which most experts do now seem to agree is milder despite Whitty initially saying it probably wasn't - when in reality what he was actually saying is that there wasn't enough evidence).



It is possible some or all of both will occur at the same time.


If let's say that the vaccine escape in BA5 makes it infect 100x as many people as let's say Delta, but that the infection was let's say 100x less serious (if you could measure that way), You'd still end up with a roughly similar number in hospital.



But even in that situation you wouldn't be "starting again" because for that to happen absolutely nothing we had against covid would work. Vaccines wouldn't stop people getting hospitalised, we'd see the admissions to tests go up again, we'd see hospitals not be able to treat them as the anti-virals don't work. But on that point I don't think they actually invented any new anti-virals for covid, just tested how to make the existing ones effective. They'd also know how to keep people apart and stop infections spreading more.


There may well be something in the future which does this but it's all hyperbole to predict how the pandemic is going to run or transition to be endemic. Whether this is due to evolution of the virus or that more people simply have some immunity to the virus either through infection or vaccination, the course of the disease in those who do get it is, at the moment, milder, and this has generally been the case, Delta was milder than Alpha in a lot of people, but just got more people. Whether the disease will generally progress to a cold type illness in pretty much everyone, or whether it will at some point throw out a variant which does have more severe effects, remains to be seen and won't be seen until it happens.



And if it does there would probably be some sort of booster roll out to the more vulnerable, maybe some more encouragement to WFH, maybe return of more free testing availability and isolating people who have the virus, What probably won't happen as much is more general-facing measures on people who aren't ill, such as covid passes (pointless if vaccinated and previously infected can get and spread it anyway), mask wearing in the general population, closure of businesses, stay home orders etc, which generally do cause more damage than they solve and probably do little to actually stop the virus anyway.


So I can't really think of any situation where the virus would put us "back to the start" or indeed where we'd get that sort of response from the politicians at all. It wouldn't be an appropriate solution really.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Not going to happen.

Because….?

---------- Post added at 22:13 ---------- Previous post was at 22:10 ----------

Originally Posted by nffc

It is feasible that there could be a variant which not only erodes vaccine or infection acquired immunity equal or more than the current ones; it is also feasible that there could be a variant which produces more severe disease than the omicron lineage (which most experts do now seem to agree is milder despite Whitty initially saying it probably wasn't - when in reality what he was actually saying is that there wasn't enough evidence).



It is possible some or all of both will occur at the same time.


If let's say that the vaccine escape in BA5 makes it infect 100x as many people as let's say Delta, but that the infection was let's say 100x less serious (if you could measure that way), You'd still end up with a roughly similar number in hospital.



But even in that situation you wouldn't be "starting again" because for that to happen absolutely nothing we had against covid would work. Vaccines wouldn't stop people getting hospitalised, we'd see the admissions to tests go up again, we'd see hospitals not be able to treat them as the anti-virals don't work. But on that point I don't think they actually invented any new anti-virals for covid, just tested how to make the existing ones effective. They'd also know how to keep people apart and stop infections spreading more.


There may well be something in the future which does this but it's all hyperbole to predict how the pandemic is going to run or transition to be endemic. Whether this is due to evolution of the virus or that more people simply have some immunity to the virus either through infection or vaccination, the course of the disease in those who do get it is, at the moment, milder, and this has generally been the case, Delta was milder than Alpha in a lot of people, but just got more people. Whether the disease will generally progress to a cold type illness in pretty much everyone, or whether it will at some point throw out a variant which does have more severe effects, remains to be seen and won't be seen until it happens.



And if it does there would probably be some sort of booster roll out to the more vulnerable, maybe some more encouragement to WFH, maybe return of more free testing availability and isolating people who have the virus, What probably won't happen as much is more general-facing measures on people who aren't ill, such as covid passes (pointless if vaccinated and previously infected can get and spread it anyway), mask wearing in the general population, closure of businesses, stay home orders etc, which generally do cause more damage than they solve and probably do little to actually stop the virus anyway.


So I can't really think of any situation where the virus would put us "back to the start" or indeed where we'd get that sort of response from the politicians at all. It wouldn't be an appropriate solution really.

The fact you can’t think of a situation doesn’t meant it cannot or won’t occur.

I’ll bet you a pound to a penny three and half years ago you couldn’t or didn’t think about covid and the destruction it would wreak

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Because….?

It’s not going to happen.