Coronavirus Thread

[ARM1968]

8 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

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.

Perhaps look at this…….

 

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/

[Facecloth]

 

[Nalis]

9 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

 

I refuse to believe they are telling the truth

[Facecloth]

2 minutes ago, Nalis said:

I refuse to believe they are telling the truth

I hope they aren't.

[Corky]

To @Super_horns and @Cardiff_Fox, I've not had the virus. I'm fine. I was mocking the idiot who said it still wasn't a big deal after needing help with breathing and how ludicrous it sounds.

 

Fair play to the NHS staff and the job they do.

[Scotch]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

 

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where this could be the case but other than, not having spoke to anyone, watched TV, used the Internet or read a paper in the the best part of two years I'm coming up with nothing. But how would someone who has done neither of those things since like March last year take part in such a survey?!

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, ARM1968 said:

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. 

 

1 hour ago, ARM1968 said:

Perhaps look at this…….

 

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/

This dates back to April this year and was duly posted on these pages at the time. I don't expect you to trawl back, but this thread has since discussed the presence of K417N mutation (previously reported in the Beta variant) that can enable the virus to escape some people's immune responses.

 

Crucially, from your link, "PHE called the research just “early exploratory analysis” and wrote that “further targeted studies” are needed to determine the extent to which vaccinated people can spread the delta variant to others."

 

Research by the University of Oxford published last week indicates that both the AZ and Pfizer vaccines are effective against Delta after two doses, but that the protection they offer wanes with time. However, conversely, a paper published the same week suggest that Delta is not particularly good at evading the antibodies generated by vaccination. The findings, published last week on 16th August in the journal 'Immunity', help explain why vaccinated people have largely escaped the worst of the delta surge. 

 

https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/antibodies-elicited-by-covid-19-vaccination-effective-against-delta-variant/

 

An ideal antibody response includes a diverse set of antibodies with the flexibility to recognize many slightly different variants of the virus whilst 'breadth' confers resilience. Even if a few antibodies lose the ability to recognise a new variant, other antibodies in the arsenal should remain capable of neutralising it.

 

How other vaccine-elicited immune components, such as T cells and B cells, respond in the long term when challenged by the Delta variant is still relatively unclear, hence the current dialogue about boosters. 

 

@Kopfkino is absolutely correct, you are still less likely to get infected - in particular in respect to symptomatic infection.

[Guest Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, ARM1968 said:

Perhaps look at this…….

 

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/

Tbh I don’t think you’ve understood what you’ve read.

 

The Top Line from that article says “While vaccinations reduce the overall risk of catching the delta variant”. It’s there in black and white, a vaccinated person is less likely to be infected (or detectably infected) than an unvaccinated person.

 

What it does say that those who are vaccinated and do get infected, they have similar viral loads and the hypothesis is that because of that they are as likely to transmit. But only 

 

In a group of 100 average unvaccinated people, you would expect all 100 to be infected with the virus at some point whilst it’s still prevalent in the community. If (not saying they are) vaccines are 80% effective at preventing infection (there’s a range of figures for this, from 40%-90%), then in a group of 100 vaccinated people we would only expect 20 to be infected. What it’s saying is that those 20 will have the same viral load as the 100 in the unvaccinated group, not all 100 vaccinated people. It is then expected that the viral load of those 20 will fall faster, because their immune system is already primed, and therefore they will be infectious for less time.

 

So whilst those 20 will probably be able to transmit the virus like an unvaccinated person, there are less getting infected in the first place and when they are infected, they’ll be infectious for a shorter period. That is exactly what the briefing that the article is based on is saying. Not that you are as likely to be infected and to transmit the virus.

 

The reason for this is that those vaccinated people that are infected possibly have lower levels of neutralising antibodies that are the first line of defence when the virus first enters your body so the virus is able to infect and multiply as rapidly as in an unvaccinated person but then the rest of the immune system kicks in to prevent most of them progressing to a more severe disease.

Edited 22 August 2021 by Kopfkino

[ARM1968]

37 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Tbh I don’t think you’ve understood what you’ve read.

 

The Top Line from that article says “While vaccinations reduce the overall risk of catching the delta variant”. It’s there in black and white, a vaccinated person is less likely to be infected (or detectably infected) than an unvaccinated person.

 

What it does say that those who are vaccinated and do get infected, they have similar viral loads and the hypothesis is that because of that they are as likely to transmit. But only 

 

In a group of 100 average unvaccinated people, you would expect all 100 to be infected with the virus at some point whilst it’s still prevalent in the community. If (not saying they are) vaccines are 80% effective at preventing infection (there’s a range of figures for this, from 40%-90%), then in a group of 100 vaccinated people we would only expect 20 to be infected. What it’s saying is that those 20 will have the same viral load as the 100 in the unvaccinated group, not all 100 vaccinated people. It is then expected that the viral load of those 20 will fall faster, because their immune system is already primed, and therefore they will be infectious for less time.

 

So whilst those 20 will probably be able to transmit the virus like an unvaccinated person, there are less getting infected in the first place and when they are infected, they’ll be infectious for a shorter period. That is exactly what the briefing that the article is based on is saying. Not that you are as likely to be infected and to transmit the virus.

 

The reason for this is that those vaccinated people that are infected possibly have lower levels of neutralising antibodies that are the first line of defence when the virus first enters your body so the virus is able to infect and multiply as rapidly as in an unvaccinated person but then the rest of the immune system kicks in to prevent most of them progressing to a more severe disease.

To be honest I understood it perfectly but thanks for the patronising stance. 
 

The vaccine suppliers own studies are showing a steady drop in efficacy. Boosters will be needed. The virus keeps evolving. Vaccines are in a race to keep up. Our best hope is that the virus mutates in a way that lessens it’s impact with regard to severe symptoms. Vaccines are a sticking plaster, they are NOT the answer - as it currently stands. 
 

Oh and I agree that vaccines are helpful here - so you’re pushing at an open door. It is also far too early to say whether there will be any long term effects from the vaccines. No one can say one way or the other. 

[ealingfox]

Been getting bombarded with texts from Lambeth about booking my 2nd vaccine over the last 2 weeks despite having made an appointment months ago and bringing it forward by 3 weeks when I got the chance. Wanted to wait for the 8 weeks to elapse which was Friday but managed to bring it forward again to today. Hope the council nonces leave me alone now.

[SpacedX]

3 hours ago, ealingfox said:

Been getting bombarded with texts from Lambeth about booking my 2nd vaccine over the last 2 weeks despite having made an appointment months ago and bringing it forward by 3 weeks when I got the chance. Wanted to wait for the 8 weeks to elapse which was Friday but managed to bring it forward again to today. Hope the council nonces leave me alone now.

I thought you were in Ealing, but then I saw location "South London" Whereabouts in Lambeth? 

[ealingfox]

44 minutes ago, Line-X said:

I thought you were in Ealing, but then I saw location "South London" Whereabouts in Lambeth? 

 

From Ealing, been living in Tulse Hill for just over 5 years now mate.

[SpacedX]

8 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

From Ealing, been living in Tulse Hill for just over 5 years now mate.

I used to drink in the Railway Tavern. 

[Sly]

17 hours ago, Scotch said:

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where this could be the case but other than, not having spoke to anyone, watched TV, used the Internet or read a paper in the the best part of two years I'm coming up with nothing. But how would someone who has done neither of those things since like March last year take part in such a survey?!

I can only think that surveyed a large proportion of people that had recently come out of a long term coma. 
 

Ridiculous if true. 

[Guest bennytwohats]

19 hours ago, ARM1968 said:

To be honest I understood it perfectly but thanks for the patronising stance. 
 

The vaccine suppliers own studies are showing a steady drop in efficacy. Boosters will be needed. The virus keeps evolving. Vaccines are in a race to keep up. Our best hope is that the virus mutates in a way that lessens it’s impact with regard to severe symptoms. Vaccines are a sticking plaster, they are NOT the answer - as it currently stands. 
 

Oh and I agree that vaccines are helpful here - so you’re pushing at an open door. It is also far too early to say whether there will be any long term effects from the vaccines. No one can say one way or the other. 

Boosters being needed doesn’t mean that the vaccine is not the answer.

 

I’m struggling to see how it’s even up for reasonable debate at this point. Virus hospitalisations and deaths relative to number of cases is down significantly compared to prior waves. To the extent that we’ve been able to lift restrictions almost completely. The reason for that is the level of immunity in the population and the vaccine is a huge part of that.

 

Longer term it’s not clear to me that boosters are definitely required, or if instead exposure to the virus will be enough to give us the required immunity - id guess it will be some combination of the two. But right now the vaccines are so important because if you’ve had neither the vaccine or caught the virus before then you’ve effectively got no immunity and they’re the people who are really at risk.

[ARM1968]

25 minutes ago, bennytwohats said:

Boosters being needed doesn’t mean that the vaccine is not the answer.

 

I’m struggling to see how it’s even up for reasonable debate at this point. Virus hospitalisations and deaths relative to number of cases is down significantly compared to prior waves. To the extent that we’ve been able to lift restrictions almost completely. The reason for that is the level of immunity in the population and the vaccine is a huge part of that.

 

Longer term it’s not clear to me that boosters are definitely required, or if instead exposure to the virus will be enough to give us the required immunity - id guess it will be some combination of the two. But right now the vaccines are so important because if you’ve had neither the vaccine or caught the virus before then you’ve effectively got no immunity and they’re the people who are really at risk.

Again open door pushing. However, most things are up for reasonable debate in my opinion. 
 

The vaccines are important and have helped. Long term they are not the answer as their efficacy wanes fairly swiftly and certainly new mutations will likely render the current crop mostly ineffective. We also have no idea if there will be any long term effects from the vaccines. No one can say either way yet.

 

The ONLY long term hope is that Covid-19 mutates down to another background virus - less deadly and more manageable. 
 

 

[st albans fox]

Many looked at the full opening up in July as madness in the face of tens of thousands of cases a day. Perhaps the ‘glass half full’ policy is to allow vaccinated people to be infected naturally to drive multi immune responses for better future protection??

[Dunge]

37 minutes ago, ARM1968 said:

Again open door pushing. However, most things are up for reasonable debate in my opinion. 
 

The vaccines are important and have helped. Long term they are not the answer as their efficacy wanes fairly swiftly and certainly new mutations will likely render the current crop mostly ineffective. We also have no idea if there will be any long term effects from the vaccines. No one can say either way yet.

 

The ONLY long term hope is that Covid-19 mutates down to another background virus - less deadly and more manageable. 
 

 

There’s an element of truth here, but it misses the point somewhat.

 

- Long term (decades in the future), vaccines probably aren’t the answer, through a combination of Covid mutation and a build-up of immunity in the human populace through contact with it. But that contact, at least initially, includes vaccination.

 

- Their efficacy in terms of antibodies wanes quite swiftly but that’s not all there is to it. Scientists are still working out exactly how it works, but you’ll likely have heard of T-cells, which stay for much longer and act as a warning system to the body to create the antibodies to fight the virus. The likely result of this being that, months after a vaccination or an infection, the body still has memory of how to fight the virus, acting slower but still effectively. The typical result being that someone can get infected in the future but can fight it off better. And again, the more people come into contact with it, the more training the body gets.

 

- If an escape variant happens, the vaccines can be tweaked. But an absolute escape variant seems unlikely. More likely is that a variant which reduces vaccine efficacy would appear rather than one that eliminates it entirely. This gives us time to fight back through an adjusted vaccine if necessary.

 

- We don’t know the long-term effects of a vaccine: True to an extent, but given the technology it’s worth noting the vaccines simulate the virus, like a body training camp. There’s nothing greatly new in the vaccines, no surprise additions or anything. Logically, any long-term ill-effects of a vaccine (should there be any) would be pretty much the same as any long-term ill-effects of Covid itself. And there’s no escaping Covid; it will catch up with you eventually, even if you’re living in New Zealand.

 

I would suggest that the probability of there being long-term effects of the vaccine across any kind of significant part of the population is very low, and falls into conspiracy theories about infertility or the like. But even if there were, it’s a null argument to me because Covid is worse. Just like the reported blood clots from the AZ vaccine: This was also a result of Covid itself. That fear is not a reason to avoid the vaccine because, like I say, Covid will catch up with you eventually. And when it does, it’s far, far safer to have given your body some practice at fighting it first. Which is the whole point of a vaccine.

Edited 23 August 2021 by Dunge
Stupid autocorrect can’t identify the word “ill”

[Dunge]

In terms of boosters, it seems there’s an interesting debate in the scientific community as to whether they’re needed or not, or whether the original rollout of vaccines is enough as a starting point for the human immune system. That’s why it may be that a booster is given only to people considered vulnerable.

 

That’s for this Autumn, at least. There may be a similar debate for next Autumn. But there are some interesting articles out there about it, that natural infection could ultimately train the body to fight Covid in more ways than the vaccine does. It’s just that vaccinations give a very strong foundation for the body to build upon.

[Guest bennytwohats]

43 minutes ago, ARM1968 said:

Again open door pushing. However, most things are up for reasonable debate in my opinion. 
 

The vaccines are important and have helped. Long term they are not the answer as their efficacy wanes fairly swiftly and certainly new mutations will likely render the current crop mostly ineffective. We also have no idea if there will be any long term effects from the vaccines. No one can say either way yet.

 

The ONLY long term hope is that Covid-19 mutates down to another background virus - less deadly and more manageable. 
 

 

You’re missing the point, which is that the vaccine provides enough immunity that even if that virus mutates, it won’t be to something which is ‘brand new’ to our bodies. We’ll have enough immunity to dampen the severity (at a population level). Over time we are going to be exposed to the virus enough that that will also contribute to our immunity.

 

What the vaccine gives you now is that initial immunity so that when you do get the virus (which we all will), it’s not ‘brand new’. Beyond that we are in a cycle of iterative changes which are body is already partly protected against.

 

That’s why I don’t think it makes sense to talk about the vaccine as completely redundant in the future. The longer term is that the vaccine allows us to safely (as safely as is possible, still not perfect), lift restrictions so that the virus circulates in the population but doesn’t put us all in hospital - that’s how we get back to normality.

 

When you talk about the virus mutating to something that’s less deadly and more manageable, that’s not really what’s happening in practice. In practice it’s the level of immunity in people which is rendering it less deadly.

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, bennytwohats said:

You’re missing the point, which is that the vaccine provides enough immunity that even if that virus mutates, it won’t be to something which is ‘brand new’ to our bodies. We’ll have enough immunity to dampen the severity (at a population level). Over time we are going to be exposed to the virus enough that that will also contribute to our immunity.

 

What the vaccine gives you now is that initial immunity so that when you do get the virus (which we all will), it’s not ‘brand new’. Beyond that we are in a cycle of iterative changes which are body is already partly protected against.

 

That’s why I don’t think it makes sense to talk about the vaccine as completely redundant in the future. The longer term is that the vaccine allows us to safely (as safely as is possible, still not perfect), lift restrictions so that the virus circulates in the population but doesn’t put us all in hospital - that’s how we get back to normality.

 

When you talk about the virus mutating to something that’s less deadly and more manageable, that’s not really what’s happening in practice. In practice it’s the level of immunity in people which is rendering it less deadly.

This has been explained time and time again on this thread over the last twelve months or so (and to an extent, on this page) and yet the personal incredulity and opinions stated as fact will always remain or return anew. 

[ealingfox]

10 hours ago, Line-X said:

I used to drink in the Railway Tavern. 

 

Nice. It's still there, haven't been in for a few months though.

[Guest bennytwohats]

5 minutes ago, Line-X said:

This has been explained time and time again on this thread over the last twelve months or so (and to an extent, on this page) and yet the personal incredulity and opinions stated as fact will always remain or return anew. 

Yeah we are clearly in an era of misinformation and anti expert sentiment. I find it saddening in a situation like this where that sentiment is going to cost a lot of people their lives.

[Finnaldo]

On 22/08/2021 at 08:39, Facecloth said:

 

That’s just a form of lizardman’s constant though isn’t it? There isn’t a conceivable way that anyone in the U.K. hasn’t heard of Covid, these are obviously people bored of filling in/talking through a poll and are giving quick answers either as a joke or to get through it. 

Edited 23 August 2021 by Finnaldo

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, bennytwohats said:

Yeah we are clearly in an era of misinformation and anti expert sentiment. I find it saddening in a situation like this where that sentiment is going to cost a lot of people their lives.

Covid is barely the tip of the (melting) iceberg compared to what's coming on that one, sadly.