Coronavirus Thread

[st albans fox]

‘Vaccine passports’ - this virus isn’t going away anytime soon.  Those who oppose VP’s will likely be able to exercise their right in this country but I expect they will be unable to travel wherever they want to in the future. I suspect the majority of countries will come up with a unified system of VP which takes care of exemptions to allow foreign and business travel. And whilst some countries will no doubt decide they don’t need this to increase their attractiveness to a chunk of the population, the airlines may well decide that they do.  
 

this probably means that whilst you can avoid a VP over here, your ability to do what you want where you want elsewhere will not be so easy …..

[st albans fox]

just been looking through bits of some of the speeches from Trafalgar Square yesterday ……. blimey !  is there anyone on here who actually believes that stuff ???

[st albans fox]

On 23/07/2021 at 18:09, Lionator said:

Why are you so skeptical of vaccine effectiveness against infection? It's there in black and white to see. Two doses leads to a 79% reduction in symptomatic infection (AZ+Pfizer combined). Public Health England tracking of millions of people is going to a lot more accurate than all of our anecdotes!

 

Also tests completed haven't dipped in line with cases, they're the same. The % stat lags by a few days so we'll hopefully be seeing it come down over the next few days.

 

It's going to be ok!!

latest data from Israel shows Pfizer less than 50% effective against delta infection.  some questions about the methodology used but even if it’s not watertight it is way below the 90% phe have found.  I think waiting a few more weeks for phe data to catch up would be best.  BUT the main take away from the study is that severe illness protection remains around 90%. 

[rachhere]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

latest data from Israel shows Pfizer less than 50% effective against delta infection.  some questions about the methodology used but even if it’s not watertight it is way below the 90% phe have found.  I think waiting a few more weeks for phe data to catch up would be best.  BUT the main take away from the study is that severe illness protection remains around 90%. 

My understanding was that severe illness protection was always the goal of these vaccines, and evidence of broader protection from infection was a bonus. Obviously they are going to continue to work on the vaccines to improve them, but for a 'first go' they are no doubt delighted by the data that is coming out. 

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, rachhere said:

My understanding was that severe illness protection was always the goal of these vaccines, and evidence of broader protection from infection was a bonus. Obviously they are going to continue to work on the vaccines to improve them, but for a 'first go' they are no doubt delighted by the data that is coming out. 

I agree - I was just replying to a poster who wanted to know why I was skeptical about vaccine protection against infection as phe had 80% AZ/Pfizer (90/70% split) on their website. 

[rachhere]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

I agree - I was just replying to a poster who wanted to know why I was skeptical about vaccine protection against infection as phe had 80% AZ/Pfizer (90/70% split) on their website. 

Sorry yes, got that! 

 

I think it was you who earlier pointed out that people are looking at this too much as a black and white issue, which I completely agree with. 

 

In other news... 

 

 

Terrible choice of language. 

 

[RowlattsFox]

I get that they are trying to push the vaccine but it's almost as if noone ever survived before the vaccine. 

 

People under 40 were encouraged to take the vaccine so it didn't spread to the vulnerable. Doesn't appear to stop transmission but does it reduce it enough to warrant forcing everyone to have it. 

 

 

[VLC86]

39 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

I get that they are trying to push the vaccine but it's almost as if noone ever survived before the vaccine. 

 

People under 40 were encouraged to take the vaccine so it didn't spread to the vulnerable. Doesn't appear to stop transmission but does it reduce it enough to warrant forcing everyone to have it. 

 

 

I think it probably does. I’m currently riddled but my other half is negative, both full vaccinated.

 

Even at 50% reduction, with the amount of people who will have antibodies it would significantly reduce hospitalisations and deaths.

[st albans fox]

42 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

I get that they are trying to push the vaccine  it's almost as if noone ever survived before the vaccine. 

 

People under 40 were encouraged to take the vaccine so it didn't spread to the vulnerable. Doesn't appear to stop transmission but does it reduce it enough to warrant forcing everyone to have it. 

 

The vast majority did survive …..but that meant large numbers died and the nhs would be  overwhelmed without lockdowns 

 

The evidence re your second point is still being collected …….. the fear is that widespread viral infections without any vaccines to mute their strength will likely lead to mutations which may evade the vaccines …. And even if only 1% of sufferers U40 were to go to hospital that’s a huge number of of people ……..most of who would survive but the evidence shows they would suffer long term physical affects. 
 

the answer is - just get jabbed ……

[z-layrex]

48 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

I get that they are trying to push the vaccine but it's almost as if noone ever survived before the vaccine. 

 

People under 40 were encouraged to take the vaccine so it didn't spread to the vulnerable. Doesn't appear to stop transmission but does it reduce it enough to warrant forcing everyone to have it. 

 

 

Compare cases to hospitalisation now to the same number of cases to hospitalisations in the last wave. That answers your question.

[Paninistickers]

57 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

The vast majority did survive …..but that meant large numbers died and the nhs would be  overwhelmed without lockdowns 

 

The evidence re your second point is still being collected …….. the fear is that widespread viral infections without any vaccines to mute their strength will likely lead to mutations which may evade the vaccines …. And even if only 1% of sufferers U40 were to go to hospital that’s a huge number of of people ……..most of who would survive but the evidence shows they would suffer long term physical affects. 
 

the answer is - just get jabbed ……

Only wondering aloud, but it might work the other way, a bit like antibiotics v bacteria 

 

The better the vaccines work, the stronger the virus might become in order to survive. The easier a virus passes, the weaker it becomes as it need not be so aggressive 

[Sampson]

Speaking to our family friend who is a cardiac nurse yesterday  who regularly has had to be dragged over to work at ICU when cases are high (and people stay say the NHS isn't overwhelmed when we have to take nurses away from emergency care in other wards) and she was saying there are a scary number of people who deny covid to their dying breath.

 

People who are being put into an induced coma who can't understand why they're ill because they're so adamant covid doesn't exist.

[Soup]

Sweden doing just fine

https://fee.org/articles/daily-covid-deaths-in-sweden-hit-zero-as-other-nations-brace-for-more-lockdowns/

[st albans fox]

17 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Only wondering aloud, but it might work the other way, a bit like antibiotics v bacteria 

 

The better the vaccines work, the stronger the virus might become in order to survive. The easier a virus passes, the weaker it becomes as it need not be so aggressive 

Fair point but so far, it seems to be mutating to become ever more transmissible and no less dangerous before vaccines make any intervention 

[z-layrex]

15 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Speaking to our family friend who is a cardiac nurse yesterday  who regularly has had to be dragged over to work at ICU when cases are high (and people stay say the NHS isn't overwhelmed when we have to take nurses away from emergency care in other wards) and she was saying there are a scary number of people who deny covid to their dying breath.

 

People who are being put into an induced coma who can't understand why they're ill because they're so adamant covid doesn't exist.

Yeah had a few of them. It's so weird isnt it. I never had a patient screaming that flu or whatever doesn't exist as we are sedating them. I just don't understand.

[st albans fox]

17 minutes ago, Soup said:

Sweden doing just fine

https://fee.org/articles/daily-covid-deaths-in-sweden-hit-zero-as-other-nations-brace-for-more-lockdowns/

Sweden 

deaths per million = 1400

 

denmark

deaths per million = 440

 

norway

deaths per million = 150

 

Finland 

deaths per million = 175

 

i reckon a comparison with other Scandinavian countries is a better one than other parts of Europe 

 

on that basis, I wouldn’t be celebrating a great victory with their policy …..

 

 

 

 

[SpacedX]

40 minutes ago, Soup said:

Sweden doing just fine

https://fee.org/articles/daily-covid-deaths-in-sweden-hit-zero-as-other-nations-brace-for-more-lockdowns/

It wasn't though. After one of the most reckless and failed national responses to the pandemic statistics now unequivocally show that the other Scandinavian countries, which enforced much stricter policies, have suffered considerably fewer losses. Having become a symbol for anti-lockdown and no-mask movements across the world, Sweden was predictably hit by a spiralling number of infections and undisputedly high number of deaths during the last wave. Both King Carl XVI Gustaf and Prime Minister Lofven acknowledged that the Swedish approach had "failed". But then, this is the FEE, a far right libertarian agenda driven think tank. And today's self referencing source? - a tweet from its own managing editor in chief, Jon Miltimore. 

 

This is a good summary from last April:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00885-0/fulltext

 

Currently, although the infection rate is now comparatively low, Sweden's cities are facing a steady increase in Delta Variant cases whilst only 25% of adults are double vaccinated, which is a concern. 

Edited 25 July 2021 by Line-X

[CosbehFox]

40 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Only wondering aloud, but it might work the other way, a bit like antibiotics v bacteria 

 

The better the vaccines work, the stronger the virus might become in order to survive. The easier a virus passes, the weaker it becomes as it need not be so aggressive 

Works both ways - the virus can sometimes trick itself and weaken in its attempts to ‘defeat’ a vaccine 

[CosbehFox]

37 minutes ago, Soup said:

Sweden doing just fine

https://fee.org/articles/daily-covid-deaths-in-sweden-hit-zero-as-other-nations-brace-for-more-lockdowns/

Denmark is doing even better, and ahead of Sweden in its pulling of restrictions. They used a lockdown approach. Danes are at about 50% double vaccinated rate as well 
 

The Scandi’s lead a life which encourages health, open air living and a lot less populated dense than the rest of Europe. 

[Raj]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57958358

 

"Got 99 problems but a vax ain't one"

Came back to haunt him didnt it.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Works both ways - the virus can sometimes trick itself and weaken in its attempts to ‘defeat’ a vaccine 

To add to this, as a broad rule of thumb, the more virulent and deadly a disease is, the less transmissible it becomes as it becomes noticed and measures are taken to prevent its spread, which means in order to survive it has to change to an equally or more transmissible but less virulent form.

 

Of course, that's not saying that this rule applies all the time, nor that it would continue to do so in the future.

[foxile5]

19 minutes ago, Raj said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57958358

 

"Got 99 problems but a vax ain't one"

Came back to haunt him didnt it.

Zero sympathy for folk like this. Zero. His god obviously wanted him brown bread so no arguments. 

[Paninistickers]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

To add to this, as a broad rule of thumb, the more virulent and deadly a disease is, the less transmissible it becomes as it becomes noticed and measures are taken to prevent its spread, which means in order to survive it has to change to an equally or more transmissible but less virulent form.

 

Of course, that's not saying that this rule applies all the time, nor that it would continue to do so in the future.

Which kinda endorses the 'let it rip' theory

[dsr-burnley]

9 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

Zero sympathy for folk like this. Zero. His god obviously wanted him brown bread so no arguments. 

There has never been biblical support for the idea that Christians will be protected on earth.  And there is plenty of evidence to prove that we won't.  All we are promised is that we will be protected in the adterlife.

 

If a random car goes out of control and there is a Christian and an atheist standing nearby, and one is killed, it it neither more nor less likely to be the Christian.  Christianity does not prevent earthly pain.

Edited 25 July 2021 by dsr-burnley

[HighPeakFox]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Speaking to our family friend who is a cardiac nurse yesterday  who regularly has had to be dragged over to work at ICU when cases are high (and people stay say the NHS isn't overwhelmed when we have to take nurses away from emergency care in other wards) and she was saying there are a scary number of people who deny covid to their dying breath.

 

People who are being put into an induced coma who can't understand why they're ill because they're so adamant covid doesn't exist.

I apologise for the irelevance here, but what you've just posted can also explain a certain demographic's voting habits - no matter the evidence, nothing will persuade them that they might have made a horrifically self-harming choice.