Coronavirus Thread

[ealingfox]

Again, if you voted Conservative I'm afraid you have no grounds for complaint about governments restricting people's personal freedoms on the basis of their individual philosophy. It was happening here well before anyone brought in mandatory vaccinations.

[Soup]

8 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Where do they draw the line? Will it end up being a jab every 6 months, then a jab a month followed by a jab a day.

I wouldn't rule any of that out. It just saddens me that it's come to this. 

 

8 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Principle is more important to you than your health ?? (And potentially others) 

 

I appreciate your stance (I’m against mandatory delivery atm) but I wouldn’t refuse to keep myself safe to make a point on this particular argument. 

To be honest I'd say yes. I think it's a massive overreaction and I don't think I'm putting my health at risk anymore than I am riding my bike without a helmet. As for other people I'll carry on being responsible around them. There's probably millions who feel the same so let's see how it all goes. 

 

 

[Phil Bowman]

1 minute ago, Soup said:

I wouldn't rule any of that out. It just saddens me that it's come to this. 

 

To be honest I'd say yes. I think it's a massive overreaction and I don't think I'm putting my health at risk anymore than I am riding my bike without a helmet. As for other people I'll carry on being responsible around them. There's probably millions who feel the same so let's see how it all goes. 

 

 

But you’re completely anti-music and anti-life, so it’s hard to take what you say seriously, to be honest.

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, Line-X said:

This is not as you seem to think some sinister global political agenda to increase state control, although I do agree we need to be very wary of the future implications of the proposals already effected and those proposed - and this has been discussed in great detail on here. This is a war against nature, with one shape shifting common foe.

 

Personally, I am more concerned about the security threats from China and Russia who are investing billions in AI and biothech. Ultimately though, the average global temperature is likely to rise by more than 1.5°C within the next 20 years and if we do not take immediate action, very likely in excess of 2.5°C by the turn of the century. Trust me, if that happens, that certainly isn't a world anyone in the future wants to be part of. 

Yup.

 

This could well make Covid look like a pleasant memory.

[Soup]

13 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

But you’re completely anti-music and anti-life, so it’s hard to take what you say seriously, to be honest.

What are you going on about?

 

And to be honest I'm not asking anyone to take me serious I'm talking about myself here. You and anyone else do whatever you want.

Edited 3 December 2021 by Soup

[st albans fox]

13 minutes ago, Soup said:

What are you going on about?

 

And to be honest I'm not asking anyone to take me serious I'm talking about myself here. You and anyone else do whatever you want.

I think Phil’s sense of humour is an acquired taste (and a bit obscure ) 

[Phil Bowman]

29 minutes ago, Soup said:

39 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

But you’re completely anti-music and anti-life, so it’s hard to take what you say seriously, to be honest.

What are you going on about?

Er… your little avatar picture thingy!

 

Once again my delicious comedy fruit falls on stony ground. It must be the way I tell ‘em…

[Phil Bowman]

19 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I think Phil’s sense of humour is an acquired taste (and a bit obscure )

Well, we don’t want to make it too easy for everyone! Where’s the fun in that?

[RoboFox]

1 hour ago, ealingfox said:

Again, if you voted Conservative I'm afraid you have no grounds for complaint about governments restricting people's personal freedoms on the basis of their individual philosophy. It was happening here well before anyone brought in mandatory vaccinations.

I'd genuinely be curious to see if any studies have been done into whether there's a link between political leaning and likelihood to reject the vaccine. 

 

I'd bet my house (If I owned one) that if the pool of people was big enough there's a correlation to be found between Brexit favourability and vaccine hesitancy, for example.

 

It all has an anti-establishment familiarity to it. 

 

Edited 3 December 2021 by RoboFox

[fuchsntf]

34 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

Well, we don’t want to make it too easy for everyone! Where’s the fun in that?

Some just refuse to come out to play,

Or rush home demanding they take the ball with them...

Even demand rights of opinion..on a football forum..how crazy is that..

Party-poopers....

 

 

[Buce]

Covid booster shots significantly strengthen immunity, trial finds

Jabs offer far higher protection than that needed to prevent hospitalisation and death, Cov-Boost trial lead says

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/02/covid-booster-shots-significantly-strengthen-immunity-trial-finds

 

Covid booster shots can dramatically strengthen the body’s immune defences, according to a study that raises hopes of preventing another wave of severe disease driven by the Omicron variant.

In a study published in the Lancet, researchers on the UK-based Cov-Boost trial measured immune responses in nearly 3,000 people who received one of seven Covid-19 boosters or a control jab two to three months after their second dose of either AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccine.

 

Those boosted with Pfizer after two doses of AstraZeneca had antibody levels a month later nearly 25 times higher than controls. When the Pfizer booster was given following two Pfizer shots, antibody levels rose more than eightfold.

The most potent booster in the study was a full dose of the Moderna vaccine, which raised antibody levels 32-fold in the AstraZeneca group and 11-fold in the Pfizer group. When Moderna is used in the UK booster programme, it is given at a half-dose.

While the findings show that both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines are highly effective boosters, scientists cautioned about comparing their performance as people started with different antibody levels. For example, antibody levels tend to remain high a few months after a Pfizer vaccination, so a booster would not be able to drive them much higher.

“These are remarkably effective immunological boosters, way above what is needed to prevent hospitalisation and death,” said Prof Saul Faust, the trial lead and director of the NIHR clinical research facility at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust. While side-effects varied, most people who reported them had fatigue, headache or arm pain and the study found no safety concerns.

Beyond antibodies, the scientists looked at the impact of boosters on T-cells – another crucial component of the immune system linked with the prevention of severe disease. Most of the boosters, including Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca, increased T-cell levels regardless of the vaccine people had for their first two doses.

One result that has caught scientists’ attention is that the T-cell response was as good against the Beta and Delta variants of concern as against the original virus that emerged from Wuhan. Asked if the finding might be relevant to the Omicron variant, Faust said: “Our hope as scientists is that protection against hospitalisation and death will remain intact.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, who was not involved in the study, shared Faust’s optimism.

“Whilst variants, such as the Delta variant, reduced the overall virus-killing effect of antibodies, the T-cell responses were pretty much unaffected,” he said. “The fact that the mRNA vaccine boosts gave a marked increase in both antibodies and T-cells is great news, especially now, when our attention has been grabbed by the emergence of the Omicron variant.

“We still don’t know how this increase in immunity translates into protection, especially against serious disease, but I am still convinced that our vaccines will continue to provide the protection that we need.”

Early results from the Cov-Boost study underpinned the decision by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to shorten the time people had to wait for a booster from six to three months. The study found AstraZeneca to be an effective booster too, raising antibody levels three and five times after primary vaccination with AstraZeneca and Pfizer respectively.

Further results from the study suggest that booster programmes could switch to half-doses of the Pfizer vaccine without losing much protection. The data shows that half-doses of Pfizer boosted antibody levels in the AstraZeneca group nearly 17 times and more than six times in those who had Pfizer for their first two shots.

[RoboFox]

19 minutes ago, Buce said:

Covid booster shots significantly strengthen immunity, trial finds

Jabs offer far higher protection than that needed to prevent hospitalisation and death, Cov-Boost trial lead says

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/02/covid-booster-shots-significantly-strengthen-immunity-trial-finds

 

Covid booster shots can dramatically strengthen the body’s immune defences, according to a study that raises hopes of preventing another wave of severe disease driven by the Omicron variant.

In a study published in the Lancet, researchers on the UK-based Cov-Boost trial measured immune responses in nearly 3,000 people who received one of seven Covid-19 boosters or a control jab two to three months after their second dose of either AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccine.

 

Those boosted with Pfizer after two doses of AstraZeneca had antibody levels a month later nearly 25 times higher than controls. When the Pfizer booster was given following two Pfizer shots, antibody levels rose more than eightfold.

The most potent booster in the study was a full dose of the Moderna vaccine, which raised antibody levels 32-fold in the AstraZeneca group and 11-fold in the Pfizer group. When Moderna is used in the UK booster programme, it is given at a half-dose.

While the findings show that both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines are highly effective boosters, scientists cautioned about comparing their performance as people started with different antibody levels. For example, antibody levels tend to remain high a few months after a Pfizer vaccination, so a booster would not be able to drive them much higher.

“These are remarkably effective immunological boosters, way above what is needed to prevent hospitalisation and death,” said Prof Saul Faust, the trial lead and director of the NIHR clinical research facility at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust. While side-effects varied, most people who reported them had fatigue, headache or arm pain and the study found no safety concerns.

Beyond antibodies, the scientists looked at the impact of boosters on T-cells – another crucial component of the immune system linked with the prevention of severe disease. Most of the boosters, including Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca, increased T-cell levels regardless of the vaccine people had for their first two doses.

One result that has caught scientists’ attention is that the T-cell response was as good against the Beta and Delta variants of concern as against the original virus that emerged from Wuhan. Asked if the finding might be relevant to the Omicron variant, Faust said: “Our hope as scientists is that protection against hospitalisation and death will remain intact.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, who was not involved in the study, shared Faust’s optimism.

“Whilst variants, such as the Delta variant, reduced the overall virus-killing effect of antibodies, the T-cell responses were pretty much unaffected,” he said. “The fact that the mRNA vaccine boosts gave a marked increase in both antibodies and T-cells is great news, especially now, when our attention has been grabbed by the emergence of the Omicron variant.

“We still don’t know how this increase in immunity translates into protection, especially against serious disease, but I am still convinced that our vaccines will continue to provide the protection that we need.”

Early results from the Cov-Boost study underpinned the decision by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to shorten the time people had to wait for a booster from six to three months. The study found AstraZeneca to be an effective booster too, raising antibody levels three and five times after primary vaccination with AstraZeneca and Pfizer respectively.

Further results from the study suggest that booster programmes could switch to half-doses of the Pfizer vaccine without losing much protection. The data shows that half-doses of Pfizer boosted antibody levels in the AstraZeneca group nearly 17 times and more than six times in those who had Pfizer for their first two shots.

“Yeah, but despite the overwhelming evidence demonstrating that the benefits vastly outweigh the risks, I've got completely unfounded evidence that it’ll cause me to have a heart attack at a football ground… Or something. So, I’m still not going to get it! That’ll show ‘em!”

 

Edited 3 December 2021 by RoboFox

[Soup]

1 hour ago, Phil Bowman said:

Er… your little avatar picture thingy!

 

Once again my delicious comedy fruit falls on stony ground. It must be the way I tell ‘em…

Yes obviously I know that haha. I happen to listen to music all the time but not sure what your point is? Unless me refusing a booster will stop my Spotify account 

[lgfualol]

Living in Germany, the new rules (that arent actually that new depending where you live) are welcome in my eyes. ICUs filling up with unvaccinated people and cases much much higher for unvaccinated people. If this stops people dying and takes pressure off hospital workers because people prefer to put potatoes in their socks instead of just getting a couple of quick jabs then it's worth it. Unlike the tinfoil hat folks, I dont see this as some government power grab, these restrictions will most likely be lifted once cases drop. 

[BKLFox]

The UK has now secured an extra 114 million doses of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to be delivered over the next two years.
 

Credit where credits due they have been on the front foot with regards to securing vaccines which is the future way out of all this, whilst other countries dither around.

[KrefelderFox666]

10 hours ago, Harrydc said:

I've kept away from this thread, but I just wanted to pop my head in and say that as a society we need to be very careful what we wish for. I won't comment anymore after this for a while, I just need to get it off my chest. 

 

What's happening in Austria, Greece and now Germany is extremely dangerous. When you allow a government to gain that sort of power you will never know where it ends. Let's be honest, you'll never be considered 'fully vaccinated' as there will always be more boosters down the line - and its looking as though they will be fairly frequent. Let's say that you get your third jab, then your fourth and then decide you don't want anymore. But, if you don't get your fourth booster you lose your rights to socialise and do the things you love? 

 

Is that a world you want to live in? Because its certainly not a world I want to be a part of. This has gone way too far now, and it's making me feel extremely uneasy about the future. I feel physically sick. 

Unfortunately, when society as a whole cannot come together and pull on one string for the sake of everyone else and it is 2 minutes to midnight, then the Governments have to step in. I don't see this as something that should be accepted forever, however, at the moment those countries are at breaking point when it comes to health services and action needs to be taken to protect thousands of people. Once the health system gets to a better state, I would expect rules to soften again and unvaccinated to be given back some freedoms.

 

It is very simple, get vaccinated if you want to enjoy all those freedoms. If not, then be prepared to have things taken away from you at least for a short period. We are lucky in the UK that uptake has been so high otherwise we might well be facing the same situation.

 

We had our "freedoms" taken away in March 2020. The majority of people accepted that it was needed. Doesn't mean that the Government control your life more than before.I bet there are people in America that would think their freedom is taken away if firearms were banned, but to most people it would be a safer/more sensible approach. Governments are there to make laws on certain matters that cannot be controlled by society alone. If you don't like a government's stance, make sure you vote for someone you think would do better and suit your views. And worst case, if your freedom rights are taken away and severely restricted (of which this is not one, at least just yet), then there is the opportunity to protest with likeminded people. Count yourself lucky that you do not live in Russia, China, North Korea or many other ruled countries like that.

[KrefelderFox666]

23 minutes ago, lgfualol said:

Living in Germany, the new rules (that arent actually that new depending where you live) are welcome in my eyes. ICUs filling up with unvaccinated people and cases much much higher for unvaccinated people. If this stops people dying and takes pressure off hospital workers because people prefer to put potatoes in their socks instead of just getting a couple of quick jabs then it's worth it. Unlike the tinfoil hat folks, I dont see this as some government power grab, these restrictions will most likely be lifted once cases drop. 

Amen

[KrefelderFox666]

14 hours ago, Phil Bowman said:

I’ve heard some people have died in car crashes when they had seat belts on.

So what’s the point of seat belts?

In fact, can’t seat belts cause injuries? I’m not risking bruised ribs just to avoid the almost non-existent chance of flying through the windscreen and almost certainly dying.

Did you know that more people die in car crashes who wear seat belts than those who do not wear seat belts? Why bother wearing one!

 

You are also less likely to die in a roadbike accident wearing a Santa outfit than wearing proper cycle gear.

[KrefelderFox666]

4 hours ago, Babylon said:

Read. The. ****ing. Study.

 

The study in that article literally says what I said. Lower viral loads, reduced chance of spread, ergo helps stop the spread.

 

Did you even read the article beyond the headline?

 

You clearly ****ing aren’t capable of dealing in anything but absolutes because you keep repeating the same ****ing shit. 

 

Really, the media have said vaccination stops all spread have they. Please do find that link for me. Or is it you not getting your brain around the fact it can help stop the spread, just not all of it.

As much cr4p as your quoted poster puts in here, I actually think he has a minor point on that last bit. I am pretty sure there have been misuses of words around the spread, in particular from the absolute tool that is our PM. I don't think anyone has claimed that ALL spread has been stopped by vaccinations but I am sure I have read some badly worded quotes from politicians and maybe media articles where they mention "stopping the spread". Which in reality should have been "reducing the spread" or similar.

 

However, anyone who does pay a little attention will know that even when vaccinated, the virus can be spread, it just means the chance of spreading is reduced compared to not being vaccinated.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

Unfortunately, when society as a whole cannot come together and pull on one string for the sake of everyone else and it is 2 minutes to midnight, then the Governments have to step in. I don't see this as something that should be accepted forever, however, at the moment those countries are at breaking point when it comes to health services and action needs to be taken to protect thousands of people. Once the health system gets to a better state, I would expect rules to soften again and unvaccinated to be given back some freedoms.

 

It is very simple, get vaccinated if you want to enjoy all those freedoms. If not, then be prepared to have things taken away from you at least for a short period. We are lucky in the UK that uptake has been so high otherwise we might well be facing the same situation.

 

We had our "freedoms" taken away in March 2020. The majority of people accepted that it was needed. Doesn't mean that the Government control your life more than before.I bet there are people in America that would think their freedom is taken away if firearms were banned, but to most people it would be a safer/more sensible approach. Governments are there to make laws on certain matters that cannot be controlled by society alone. If you don't like a government's stance, make sure you vote for someone you think would do better and suit your views. And worst case, if your freedom rights are taken away and severely restricted (of which this is not one, at least just yet), then there is the opportunity to protest with likeminded people. Count yourself lucky that you do not live in Russia, China, North Korea or many other ruled countries like that.

And there are a multitude of precedents where such measures have been deemed necessary, and have been largely accepted.

 

Perhaps it's something to do with the tangibility of the threat, but I'm of the opinion that most often threats of this kind from other humans (like wars and "terrorist" threats) are taken much more seriously in terms of accepting a government response that impinges on freedoms than more natural threats like a virus or climate change, despite the latter being far more deadly to a person statistically both in theory and in practice.

 

It's an irrational standpoint that really does us no favours in terms of our long term survival.

Edited 3 December 2021 by leicsmac

[Soup]

1 hour ago, RoboFox said:

“Yeah, but despite the overwhelming evidence demonstrating that the benefits vastly outweigh the risks, I've got completely unfounded evidence that it’ll cause me to have a heart attack at a football ground… Or something. So, I’m still not going to get it! That’ll show ‘em!”

 

The study is indeed interesting and obviously if it's published in the Lancet it has to hold some weight. Here's another piece from the Lancet a week or so ago, it's saying that we shouldn't call this a pandemic of the unvaccinated. 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02243-1/fulltext

 

[Innovindil]

Any big brains around that know the time between "contact" with one of the great unclean and actually being able to test positive if you've managed to catch it? Takes a couple of days right? Or did I imagine reading that somewhere? 

[danny.]

5 hours ago, Babylon said:

Read. The. ****ing. Study.

 

The study in that article literally says what I said. Lower viral loads, reduced chance of spread, ergo helps stop the spread.

 

Did you even read the article beyond the headline?

 

You clearly ****ing aren’t capable of dealing in anything but absolutes because you keep repeating the same ****ing shit. 

 

Really, the media have said vaccination stops all spread have they. Please do find that link for me. Or is it you not getting your brain around the fact it can help stop the spread, just not all of it.

Yes of course I did, I've read it a couple of times.

 

To be fair I'd missed that peak loads where not the same as overall loads. Thanks for pointing out.

 

Not interested in your personal insults so let's leave it there. Enjoy your day.

[SpacedX]

36 minutes ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

Count yourself lucky that you do not live in Russia, China, North Korea or many other ruled countries like that.

This has been pointed out before but unfortunately he is under the impression that the UK is a totalitarian state. 

[danny.]

30 minutes ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

As much cr4p as your quoted poster puts in here, I actually think he has a minor point on that last bit. I am pretty sure there have been misuses of words around the spread, in particular from the absolute tool that is our PM. I don't think anyone has claimed that ALL spread has been stopped by vaccinations but I am sure I have read some badly worded quotes from politicians and maybe media articles where they mention "stopping the spread". Which in reality should have been "reducing the spread" or similar.

 

However, anyone who does pay a little attention will know that even when vaccinated, the virus can be spread, it just means the chance of spreading is reduced compared to not being vaccinated.

Exactly this.

 

Please do point out when I'm spreading cr4p, I'm just here to try and educate myself, I find the thread useful. No agenda from me. Would appreciate anything I've posted that is nonsense to be called out.