Coronavirus Thread

[Phil Bowman]

19 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

That's the sort of thing I don't like.  Vaccines against other variants provide something like 90% protection against death and serious illness.  Is Tom Clarke suggesting that this is 20-40 times less effective, ie. it provides 2-4% protection against death and serious illness?

The problem is that the terms ‘20-40 times less’ or ‘20-40 times reduction’ are actually completely meaningless. They literally make no sense. I hate it when people use them for stuff like this. Use actual figures that do make sense, like ‘is x-percent as effective.’

 

(not blaming anyone on here btw, at least I don’t think so, but wherever it originally came from. Journalists do it all the time, and I wish they’d stop)

 

Edited 7 December 2021 by Phil Bowman

[Lionator]

18 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

So if the problem is sheer numbers of people catching it, we (or the politicians) presumably have to decide do we let it rip and see how many people are affected, and get it over with in a few weeks;' or do we go back to lockdown for however long it takes for the pandemic to pass - perhaps another two years or so, perhaps longer.  (Perhaps shorter, though I doubt it.)

 

Maybe I'm selfish, but I am not willing to endure another couple of years of lockdown for the sake of people who are frightened of a little **** in the arm.  It's tough on the nurses, and perhaps they ought to rebuild and open the Nightingale hospitals with a basic skeleton staff so that the unvaccinated can take their chances there.  That is their choice, and they can bear the consequences of their decision.  But we can't have dementia sufferers locked up again, we can't have schools closing again, we can't afford more horrifically large public debt.  If we're all going to get it, let's get it over with rather than dragging it out for years.  Let the vaccine do its job.

 

If they come up with any empirical evidence that the disease is worse in the vaccinated than delta is, that changes it.  But I think they would have some evidence of that by now - all the evidence seems to point the other way.

If it was that simple then we could let it rip.

 

Unfortunately there'd still be a risk to the nhs. And while you won't die from covid, god forbid you have an accident and need the nhs, and you can't be seen quickly, and your broken leg turns septic, and there's not an intensive care bed for you, then you die.  

[st albans fox]

The better protection offered by previous infection could well be down to the T cell immunity I was mentioning at the weekend

 

it may well be that boosters are not particularly helpful here as they are too crude a weapon offering increased antibodies which aren’t very effective against the mutation. 
 

we must hope that the boosters do help because basic maths tells you that unless the effects of omicron are widely mild across all age groups, we will be struggling. 

[dsr-burnley]

3 minutes ago, Lionator said:

If it was that simple then we could let it rip.

 

Unfortunately there'd still be a risk to the nhs. And while you won't die from covid, god forbid you have an accident and need the nhs, and you can't be seen quickly, and your broken leg turns septic, and there's not an intensive care bed for you, then you die.  

This is the problem, isn't it.  If this lockdown on-off-on goes on for another couple of years, then by the end of it (if that is the end!) 2.5 million people will have died a lonely death after a pretty unsatisfactory last few years of life.  It's fine to say "yes, but you kept breathing for those few years" as if that was the be-all and end-all, but as Auberon Waugh said, there is nothing worth giving up for the sake of an extra couple of years in a nursing home.

 

We're already 50,000 cancer cases down, over the last two years, compared with more normal periods.  Is this because there is much less cancer about now, or is it because in our collective desire to protect the NHS, we have forgotten that actual people need protecting as well?  

 

I'm not saying it is simple.  On the contrary, it's very complex.  If we just let it rip, then we will be able to identify specific people who have died who would not have died (at least, not of that cause) under another long lockdown.  But if it overall leads to more deaths and more misery in the long run, then is it a good thing?

[Stivo]

7 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

The problem is that the terms ‘20-40 times less’ or ‘20-40 times reduction’ are actually completely meaningless. They literally make no sense. I hate it when people use them for stuff like this. Use actual figures that do make sense, like ‘is x-percent as effective.’

it’s a scientific paper reporting on a lab experiment with raw data aimed at other scientists.  

try this for some initial analysis on what it might mean

 

https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout

 

[Corky]

2 hours ago, foxile5 said:

The politicians joking about their Christmas party has really annoyed me. 

 

 

They really couldn't hold their public in any more contempt. Hopefully all the Tory constituencies will be full of people asking their local MP "Why couldn't we have a party last year?" My local bunch of party liners, who voted for the lockdowns, will do well to worm out of this.

 

No doubt we'll get a load of MP's wailing about the police getting involved, "why can't they focus on real crimes" whilst making going beyond your street virtually a criminal offence for a time. Good luck with getting mass compliance next time you want any though.

[SpacedX]

26 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

This is the problem, isn't it.  If this lockdown on-off-on goes on for another couple of years, then by the end of it (if that is the end!) 2.5 million people will have died a lonely death after a pretty unsatisfactory last few years of life.  It's fine to say "yes, but you kept breathing for those few years" as if that was the be-all and end-all, but as Auberon Waugh said, there is nothing worth giving up for the sake of an extra couple of years in a nursing home.

 

We're already 50,000 cancer cases down, over the last two years, compared with more normal periods.  Is this because there is much less cancer about now, or is it because in our collective desire to protect the NHS, we have forgotten that actual people need protecting as well?  

 

I'm not saying it is simple.  On the contrary, it's very complex.  If we just let it rip, then we will be able to identify specific people who have died who would not have died (at least, not of that cause) under another long lockdown.  But if it overall leads to more deaths and more misery in the long run, then is it a good thing?

The prolonged large scale lockdowns that you refer to in the UK DSR - and Europe, in the absence of vaccination saved millions of lives, were designed to buy time, to flatten the curve and ease clinical burden. Without completely ruling out the possibility because dangerous mutations could emerge, I think it's highly unlikely that wel'l ever return to something of that scale in our battle against the current virus in this country. Firebreaks/short regional lockdowns are conceivable but another long-term national lockdown? - fortunately, probably not. This is the worse time of year for a new variant to take hold though. 

 

I do admit to gaining some consolation from the amusement surrounding the same few shitting themselves over the prospect though  At even the briefest suggestion of 'restrictions' - the meltdown over their supposed loss of "freedoms". What they really mean is that they might not be able to go to the pub or book a holiday. 

Edited 7 December 2021 by Line-X

[FoxesDeb]

40 minutes ago, GingerrrFox said:

You’ve changed your tune from your previous post. Let it rip as long as vaccines make you safe….oh actually 20-40 times less effective 😭 screw the dementia sufferers, the kids in school and rack up the public debt until I can get my booster 😂

Did you quote the wrong post, because in the one you did quote the poster says absolutely nothing like you've said they did? 

[Corky]

Although the most startling piece of news today is that people want to attend a party with Gavin Williamson.

[reynard]

I may have misread some of this latest stuff but there seems to be a lot about 2 doses of Pfizer and similar vaccines followed by a booster/infection or both but not much about AZ vaccines followed by a Pfizer type booster.

 

Also the South African population demographic is much younger than the UK. Not sure re age groups with vaccine effectiveness re Omicron.

Or have I misread things?

[martyn]

5 minutes ago, reynard said:

I may have misread some of this latest stuff but there seems to be a lot about 2 doses of Pfizer and similar vaccines followed by a booster/infection or both but not much about AZ vaccines followed by a Pfizer type booster.

 

Also the South African population demographic is much younger than the UK. Not sure re age groups with vaccine effectiveness re Omicron.

Or have I misread things?

2 doses of AZ plus mRNA booster is pretty much as effective as 2 mRNA + booster. Saw this graphic a few days ago but retweeted by Chise earlier

 

 

Edited 7 December 2021 by martyn

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

The prolonged large scale lockdowns that you refer to in the UK DSR - and Europe, in the absence of vaccination saved millions of lives, were designed to buy time, to flatten the curve and ease clinical burden. Without completely ruling out the possibility because dangerous mutations could emerge, I think it's highly unlikely that wel'l ever return to something of that scale in our battle against the current virus in this country. Firebreaks/short regional lockdowns are conceivable but another long-term national lockdown? - fortunately, probably not. This is the worse time of year for a new variant to take hold though. 

 

I do admit to gaining some consolation from the amusement surrounding the same few [deleted] themselves over the prospect though  At even the briefest suggestion of 'restrictions' - the meltdown over their supposed loss of "freedoms". What they really mean is that they might not be able to go to the pub or book a holiday. 

That first paragraph, to a large extent, is my point.  The problem is that some people, politicians and scientists both, seem to have moved on to the idea that lockdowns are to prevent anyone, anywhere, from dying of covid.  They are getting disproportionate about other risks.

 

As for the second paragraph, my concern has always been, and still is, the effect on old people, some with possible dementia who are told once again that they cannot see their friends or relatives and they cannot go out and they must stare at the TV for another 6 months.  It does not do them any good.

[GingerrrFox]

Do the government genuinely think people will follow the rumoured rules regarding vaccine passports and restrictions after the video leak tonight?

[Steven]

People in counties that voted Trump more likely to die from Covid – study

 

I would love to see a similar study in the UK.

[dsr-burnley]

11 minutes ago, Steven said:

People in counties that voted Trump more likely to die from Covid – study

 

I would love to see a similar study in the UK.

I wonder how they made allowance for the fact that rural areas were disproportionately affected later - the first wave was more prevalent in cities, later waves disproportionately affected rural areas.  I wonder also how they allowed for the fact that the disease in summer was most prevalent in the south east and democrat states in the south east were worse affected that republican states in the north and west.  I mean, they must have done those things, otherwise this would just be "let's find another way to trash Donald Trump regardless of the facts" article.

[yorkie1999]

4 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Boris Johnson will brush it off and people will let him, despite all they've suffered in this past two years.

 

Him and his lot have gleefully taken the piss with the rest of us, and been caught numerous times, throughout this pandemic.

 

I basically watched my grandma die through a screen last year, but people will still give this spiv cvnt the benefit of the doubt because he's got a shit hairdo. It's beyond sickening.

Well, unless someone blows up parliament, there’s not a lot that can be done until the next election.

[yorkie1999]

5 hours ago, rachhere said:

I know. I just sent the link to my friend saying 'sack the lot of them'. 

 

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-12-07/no-10-staff-joke-in-leaked-recording-about-christmas-party-they-later-denied 

I went home…erm ahh....thinks about it…shit I’ve just confirmed there was a party… Boris, why have you hung me out to dry.

[leicsmac]

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/05/1059828993/data-vaccine-misinformation-trump-counties-covid-death-rate

 

From the original study:

 

35 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I wonder how they made allowance for the fact that rural areas were disproportionately affected later - the first wave was more prevalent in cities, later waves disproportionately affected rural areas.

"NPR looked at deaths per 100,000 people in roughly 3,000 counties across the U.S. from May 2021, the point at which vaccinations widely became available."

 

This is after the first three big waves of the pandemic, that presumably covered rural and urban areas.

 

40 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

 I wonder also how they allowed for the fact that the disease in summer was most prevalent in the south east and democrat states in the south east were worse affected that republican states in the north and west.

Not relevant unless we're talking proportion of people rather than gross numbers, which is what this survey is referring to.

 

41 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I mean, they must have done those things, otherwise this would just be "let's find another way to trash Donald Trump regardless of the facts" article.

The data regarding vaccine refusal and subsequent death statistics linked to location and voting patterns in the study speaks for itself. There's zero justification for defending Trump on this matter. (Or on many others, come to that - I know bashing him seems like the "done" thing and therefore defending him is counterculture and "cool" but sometimes a spade is a spade and a cvnt is a cvnt.)

 

 

[Milo]

4 hours ago, Steven said:

People in counties that voted Trump more likely to die from Covid – study

 

I would love to see a similar study in the UK.

Don’t think many people voted Trump here. 

[Voll Blau]

6 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Well, unless someone blows up parliament, there’s not a lot that can be done until the next election.

Public pressure, protest, hound the badly-dressed sack of straw until either an election or he resigns. If people still want to shrug their shoulders at this point then we really do deserve everything we get.

[st albans fox]

6 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Well, unless someone blows up parliament, there’s not a lot that can be done until the next election.

They won’t go but he may well

he’s not the kind of person to hang around if he feels he isn’t supported …..

he wants an easy life 

that’s his character 

but he will also want to leave on his terms so I wouldn’t expect him to go in the face of a storm (unless it’s simply impossible not to) 

[adam]

Oh no he's off again. 

 

 

[SpacedX]

8 hours ago, GingerrrFox said:

Do the government genuinely think people will follow the rumoured rules regarding vaccine passports and restrictions after the video leak tonight?

Probably - they are that arrogant. Once again, this a a profound error of judgement and a criminal abuse of power which will cost lives and further weaken the NHS. 

[SpacedX]

12 minutes ago, adam said:

Oh no he's off again. 

 

 

Oh no, so are you. 

[adam]

22 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Oh no, so are you. 

Sorry, was that from the wrong source?