Coronavirus Thread

[SpacedX]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

This is just absolutely insane, especially given that Lascelles and Joelinton were badly affected in January too. What on earth do footballers think these vaccines are going to do to them??

This dumb shit must spread like wildfire through the dressing room and probably, the younger players. I'm also guessing that the WAGs sat at home bored shitless by daytime TV and with too much time on their hands, take to the internet and when their partners get home from training, parrot online conspiracy theory in an attempt to sound informed and clever. 

[Houdini Logic]

The majority of teens/twenties who I talk to at my gym haven't and won't have the vaccine. Seems to be largely around trust and in part thinking the effects of COVID won't be too bad - they seem resigned to the fact they'll get it at some point.

 

Similar demographic to most footballers so I'm guessing their reasons are similar

Edited 21 August 2021 by Houdini Logic

[Adrian]

5 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Just read an interesting article ref natural exposure v vaccine.  It’s pretty much accepted that a reasonable viral exposure will be a much better protection against future infection than a double jab. (Because the natural exposure is to all 28 proteins in the virus rather than the single spike protein ).  
 

the question now being mooted in some circles is whether allowing the population to be infected post double jab is better than boosters to prevent any infection.  In the end, natural immunity will be a better weapon to win the war against the disease than six monthly boosters. And the expectation is that even with reduced vaccine induced antibody levels over time, infections are unlikely to lead to hospitalisations.  
 

I would think that as we get into the autumn, the govt will embark on a widespread booster program for the over 60’s and vulnerable. The rest of us will be asked to take our chances and hope that the science is right ! 
 

I wonder if it would be a good idea for those who have had covid to have blood tests to analyse their T cell/ antibody levels. If they are strong enough then no need for boosters. However, the numbers involved probably mean that it’s easier (and way cheaper)  to just boost that older age group and not worry about whether it’s necessary. 

to me its people's intuition that we just have to get on with it..in other words its this popular aurguably unscientific sentiment thats causing thousand of ozzies to protest the over zealous lockdown strategy in Oz land

Edited 21 August 2021 by Adrian

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Adrian said:

to me its people's intuition that we just have to get on with it..in other words its this popular aurguably unscientific sentiment thats causing thousand of ozzies to protest the over zealous lockdown strategy in Oz land

And, more's the pity, it's not the only area where sentiment overrules scientific fact.

[whoareyaaa]

6 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Just read an interesting article ref natural exposure v vaccine.  It’s pretty much accepted that a reasonable viral exposure will be a much better protection against future infection than a double jab. (Because the natural exposure is to all 28 proteins in the virus rather than the single spike protein ).  
 

the question now being mooted in some circles is whether allowing the population to be infected post double jab is better than boosters to prevent any infection.  In the end, natural immunity will be a better weapon to win the war against the disease than six monthly boosters. And the expectation is that even with reduced vaccine induced antibody levels over time, infections are unlikely to lead to hospitalisations.  
 

I would think that as we get into the autumn, the govt will embark on a widespread booster program for the over 60’s and vulnerable. The rest of us will be asked to take our chances and hope that the science is right ! 
 

I wonder if it would be a good idea for those who have had covid to have blood tests to analyse their T cell/ antibody levels. If they are strong enough then no need for boosters. However, the numbers involved probably mean that it’s easier (and way cheaper)  to just boost that older age group and not worry about whether it’s necessary. 

They are already doing this I had a letter from the NHS to participate in the trails I didn't take it up however 

[whoareyaaa]

25 minutes ago, Houdini Logic said:

The majority of teens/twenties who I talk to at my gym haven't and won't have the vaccine. Seems to be largely around trust and in part thinking the effects of COVID won't be too bad - they seem resigned to the fact they'll get it at some point.

 

Similar demographic to most footballers so I'm guessing their reasons are similar

They don't require it as much as older people to me it seems like they don't really know what they are doing and are just taking the public on a ride .. I won't be having the vaccine don't need to and if they want me to protect society they should have done a proper job of not letting the virus into the public domain or when they had a chance to shut down borders but didn't, don't blame me for not taking up the vaccine blame the gov as that's where the buck lies imo.

[Adrian]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And, more's the pity, it's not the only area where sentiment overrules scientific fact.

so are they all wrong? is there no value in what they stand for?

Edited 21 August 2021 by Adrian

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Adrian said:

so are they all wrong? is there no value in what they stand for?

Interesting question, as the concept of "value" is so subjective.

 

But my own take is, for example, those who choose a stance that allows for excessive fossil fuel use in this day and age when the science is very clear about where it will drive the future are choosing a stance that puts zero value on that future.

[Adrian]

good analogy but it might be fairer to say 'less value on the future and more value on the present rather ' than 'zero value....' 

 

personally I have clashed with others who dont like my somewhat laisez-faire attitude towards covid but i have noticed it doesn't take long before those arguments about scientific fact soon become conversations where morals, political views or misanthropic attitudes...e.g. 'idiot ozzies' become prevalent.  Ive seen covid used as an excuse numerous times not to do something when really they don't want to admit they just cant be bothered to get off their backside..."you cant challenge me its scientific fact...you cant challenge me i know someone who died..etc etc"

Edited 21 August 2021 by Adrian

[SpacedX]

7 minutes ago, Adrian said:

good analogy but it might be fairer to say 'less value on the future and more value on the present rather ' than 'zero value....' 

 

personally I have clashed with others who dont like my somewhat laisez-faire attitude towards covid but i have noticed it doesn't take long before those arguments about scientific fact soon become conversations where morals, political views or misanthropic attitudes...e.g. 'idiot ozzies' become prevalent.  Ive seen covid used as an excuse numerous times not to do something when really they don't want to admit they just cant be bothered to get off their backside..."you cant challenge me its scientific fact...you cant challenge me i know someone who died..etc etc"

"Scientific fact" being independently verifiable, reproducible and demonstrable therefore has a voice of its own. It's actually a matter of "getting off your backside" to objectively appraise it. 

[st albans fox]

35 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

They are already doing this I had a letter from the NHS to participate in the trails I didn't take it up however 

I was going to enquire why you wouldn’t take part in a blood test ?   Then I read your next post which explains your viewpoint below.  The trial was obviously not just about getting blood tests but required you to subsequently have the jabs  ????
 

31 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

They don't require it as much as older people to me it seems like they don't really know what they are doing and are just taking the public on a ride .. I won't be having the vaccine don't need to and if they want me to protect society they should have done a proper job of not letting the virus into the public domain or when they had a chance to shut down borders but didn't, don't blame me for not taking up the vaccine blame the gov as that's where the buck lies imo.

 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Adrian said:

good analogy but it might be fairer to say 'less value on the future and more value on the present rather ' than 'zero value....' 

 

personally I have clashed with others who dont like my somewhat laisez-faire attitude towards covid but i have noticed it doesn't take long before those arguments about scientific fact soon become conversations where morals, political views or misanthropic attitudes...e.g. 'idiot ozzies' become prevalent.  Ive seen covid used as an excuse numerous times not to do something when really they don't want to admit they just cant be bothered to get off their backside..."you cant challenge me its scientific fact...you cant challenge me i know someone who died..etc etc"

Given the future consequences of ignoring what we're doing to the planet, I would posit that the difference between "less" and "zero" is practically nothing here though.

 

I do however see what you mean regarding the second paragraph, which is why, as Line-X said above, being able to parse between statements of scientific fact and not is really important. Often difficult given science communication is often not of the standard it needs to be, though.

[FoxesDeb]

57 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

They don't require it as much as older people to me it seems like they don't really know what they are doing and are just taking the public on a ride .. I won't be having the vaccine don't need to and if they want me to protect society they should have done a proper job of not letting the virus into the public domain or when they had a chance to shut down borders but didn't, don't blame me for not taking up the vaccine blame the gov as that's where the buck lies imo.

What makes you think you don't need it? I'm genuinely interested in your reasons. We were never going to keep it out of the UK, and the discussion around closing borders has been done to death on here, it's just not feasible for a small island where we depend on so many imports. But now that any missed opportunities have passed, however people feel it could have been handled differently, I'm wondering why you wouldn't have it? 

[st albans fox]

18 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

What makes you think you don't need it? I'm genuinely interested in your reasons. We were never going to keep it out of the UK, and the discussion around closing borders has been done to death on here, it's just not feasible for a small island where we depend on so many imports. But now that any missed opportunities have passed, however people feel it could have been handled differently, I'm wondering why you wouldn't have it? 

Cos he’s has it already ….. so even though he knows he may contract it again, the assumption he has is that it won’t put him in hospital and his viral load shouldn’t be too high to pass on … that’s not a thoroughly unreasonable stance ….

Edited 21 August 2021 by st albans fox

[whoareyaaa]

25 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Cos he’s has it already ….. so even though he knows he may contract it again, the assumption he has is that it won’t put him in hospital and his viral load shouldn’t be too high to pass on … that’s not a thoroughly unreasonable stance ….

correct plus I don't go round coughing in peoples faces when out and about so I shouldn't be to much of a risk to anyone add to that I've been working since it started and around people and me nor anybody I know has been hospitalised.

Edited 21 August 2021 by whoareyaaa

[Soup]

Wow the scene's in Melbourne today, it really is getting ugly over there. 

[Guest Col city fan]

3 hours ago, Soup said:

Wow the scene's in Melbourne today, it really is getting ugly over there. 

Pardon my ignorance, what’s happening?

[ARM1968]

15 hours ago, st albans fox said:

They probably will because he’s a big fella and he’s clearly had a decent viral exposure. 

 

but studies over the past few months have shown that the best protection against delta is with those who are double jabbed and had previous covid experience.  So in order to do his bit for society and not be a spreader, he would be best to take the vaccine.  He obvs won’t though 

Hasn’t there just been an official UK study released which suggests the ability to catch and spread Delta is pretty much the same for unvaccinated and doubled jabbed?  The viral load is also pretty much the same too. However there are some indicators suggesting being double jabbed  may still ease the severity of symptoms, but not in all cases. 
 

So in essence being double jabbed doesn’t make you immune, doesn’t stop you catching Delta and doesn’t stop you spreading it. 
 

The truth is that the vaccines will be playing catch-up forever and a day. However there is some evidence to suggest that further Covid-19 mutations may well follow a more contagious but less deadly pathway. That has to be the real hope. 

[Soup]

2 hours ago, Col city fan said:

Pardon my ignorance, what’s happening?

Big anti lockdown protests as in many cities around the world, but unlike other demos lots of battles with police.  Some really ugly stuff, not good whatever way you look at it

 

[st albans fox]

Just now, ARM1968 said:

Hasn’t there just been an official UK study released which suggests the ability to catch and spread Delta is pretty much the same for unvaccinated and doubled jabbed?  The viral load is also pretty much the same too. However there are some indicators suggesting being double jabbed  may still ease the severity of symptoms, but not in all cases. 
 

So in essence being double jabbed doesn’t make you immune, doesn’t stop you catching Delta and doesn’t stop you spreading it. 
 

The truth is that the vaccines will be playing catch-up forever and a day. However there is some evidence to suggest that further Covid-19 mutations may well follow a more contagious but less deadly pathway. That has to be the real hope. 

Yes I read that a couple of days ago, however, being double jabbed must make the likelihood of contracting the virus lower than being un vaccinated.  Even the worse case numbers of AZ are 50% efficacy so your second sentence really doesn’t make sense.  Pfizer seems to be around 65/70% at worst.

 

and to say that being double jabbed MAY ease symptoms isn’t right at all - it absolutely does in the majority of breakthrough cases. 

[Sampson]

41 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Yes I read that a couple of days ago, however, being double jabbed must make the likelihood of contracting the virus lower than being un vaccinated.  Even the worse case numbers of AZ are 50% efficacy so your second sentence really doesn’t make sense.  Pfizer seems to be around 65/70% at worst.

 

and to say that being double jabbed MAY ease symptoms isn’t right at all - it absolutely does in the majority of breakthrough cases. 

Do you have a source for this? I'm interested. All I can see on Google in recent days is how effective the vaccines are showing against delta.

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, ARM1968 said:

Hasn’t there just been an official UK study released which suggests the ability to catch and spread Delta is pretty much the same for unvaccinated and doubled jabbed?  The viral load is also pretty much the same too. However there are some indicators suggesting being double jabbed  may still ease the severity of symptoms, but not in all cases. 
 

So in essence being double jabbed doesn’t make you immune, doesn’t stop you catching Delta and doesn’t stop you spreading it. 
 

The truth is that the vaccines will be playing catch-up forever and a day. However there is some evidence to suggest that further Covid-19 mutations may well follow a more contagious but less deadly pathway. That has to be the real hope. 

I think you're dealing in absolutes, which doesn't make sense.  Yes, it's possible to die of or with covid if you have been double jabbed.  But just because your chance of death is reduced by, say, 95% (might be more) doesn't mean that the vaccine is a failure, even though it isn't 100%.

 

I don't think there was ever any suggestion that the vaccine could stop you catching coronavirus - not in the sense of catching it that they use today.  You catch it by breathing it in, and the vaccine has never claimed to be able to stop you breathing it in.  You breathe it in, you catch the disease, and then (unvaccinated) it spreads like mad while your immune system catches up, or (vaccinated) your immune system gets to work sharpish and kills it before it has time to spread like mad and do too much damage.  In very broad outline.

 

The virus seems to become infectious and spread at a very early stage of infection, before even the vaccinated people's immune systems have really got going.  That's why the viral load is similar, I would presume.  (It's also why vaccination passports are looking like a complete waste of time.)

[Guest Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, ARM1968 said:

Hasn’t there just been an official UK study released which suggests the ability to catch and spread Delta is pretty much the same for unvaccinated and doubled jabbed?  The viral load is also pretty much the same too. However there are some indicators suggesting being double jabbed  may still ease the severity of symptoms, but not in all cases. 
 

So in essence being double jabbed doesn’t make you immune, doesn’t stop you catching Delta and doesn’t stop you spreading it. 
 

The truth is that the vaccines will be playing catch-up forever and a day. However there is some evidence to suggest that further Covid-19 mutations may well follow a more contagious but less deadly pathway. That has to be the real hope. 

No you are still less likely to get infected, certainly symptomatic infection. What the study showed is that those that are double vaccinated and do become infected have the same nasal viral load as those who are unvaccinated which means they’re likely to still transmit, albeit probably for a shorter time given the viral load is likely to fall much quicker.

[st albans fox]

8 hours ago, Sampson said:

Do you have a source for this? I'm interested. All I can see on Google in recent days is how effective the vaccines are showing against delta.

For which bit specifically  ??

[ARM1968]

9 hours ago, Sampson said:

Do you have a source for this? I'm interested. All I can see on Google in recent days is how effective the vaccines are showing against delta.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/08/06/fully-vaccinated-may-transmit-delta-just-as-easily-and-new-variant-shows-signs-of-vaccine-evasion-early-uk-research-suggests/amp/
 

Try that.