Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

9 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

That may be so but it doesn't alter my opinion that as the vaccine rollout is about the only thing the BJ government is not broadly criticised for it's becoming more and more of a political crutch...... eg; Starmer, your government is racist, BJ look how many arms we've jabbed . The obsession with vaccinating everyone is in my opinion mostly political.

Out of order: Baroness Boothroyd says Boris Johnson shirks duties at PMQs | News | The Times

Doubt whether they are that stupid tbh.

They will encourage everyone to get the vaccine and why not. But they won't focus on getting the vaccine to an ever smaller and more highly resistive group by taking increasingly extreme measures. It would be a lot of hassle and would do no good politically.

What they may do is implement policy that discriminates against those that don't have it in favour of those that do (eg vaccine passports). That makes a lot more political sense, because the number of people that have been jabbed is >> than those that haven't.

[anonguest]

9 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Focussing on just deaths, and just the AVERAGE age at death, misses things likes:

- The fact that some of the deaths are young people even if the average age is 80-something

True.  But young people also die in road traffic accidents and get murdered too.  Indeed, here in the UK, more of them die this way than through Covid!

- All the people who don't die, but spend several very unpleasant weeks in hospital

Unpleasant. Not life changing or end of the world.

- All the people who get long COVID

What about them?  Each and every year some people never ever recover from a bad bout of flu and have long lived, possibly lifetime, after effects.  Those may neumber in thousands.  Unfortunate for sure. But not in hundreds of thousands or millions - to the point that wider society is affected.  Every year thousands of people suffer long term debilitation from all manner of medical conditions (stroke, etc). But it doesn't impact wider society or the economy and so we accept it happens and rest of us get on with our lives.

Like the vast majority of people who get flu, the vast majority will recover from Covid.  Covid is a somewhat nastier illness, for the minority that develop meaningful symptoms, so it stands to reason/should not be overly suprising if the recovery time will be somewhat longer

A lot more people get nasty effects of COVID than nasty side effects from the vaccines.

You're referring to after effects of Covid?  in which case, evidence for that statement please?

I think the end goal here is a mixture of public health (for the vulnerable) and getting the economy going again (for the rest).

I've never argued with the importance of making efforts to shield those who are particularly vulnerable to Covid.  My argument is that it can be done creatively, practically and cost effectively and with the sledgehammer and blunt intrument approach of de facto locking everyone up and shutting everything down.

 

[winkie]

Question to anyone who has travelled outside the UK.......has any country asked to see proof of a UK double CoVid  vaccination?

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

14 minutes ago, winkie said:

Question to anyone who has travelled outside the UK.......has any country asked to see proof of a UK double CoVid  vaccination?

Where are you planning on going winks?

[Confusion of VIs]

 

Boris Johnson pursuing Covid policy of mass infection that poses ‘danger to the world’, scientists warn

The government's policy now seem to be completely detached from the scientific advice. My wife was recently at a planning meeting allocating resources to Covid over the next few months. The meeting was attended by a SAGE member whose advice was to expect things to get as bad as they were in the second wave and refused to even attempt to defend current policy.

Another infections disease expert pointed out just how mad it was to reopen nightclubs, saying that a venue letting in 1,000 people will have at least 10 infectious people circulating in an environment that is perfect for spreading the virus. He thought it was likely that 10% of people in such a venue would be infected. 

          

[Sour Mash]

5 hours ago, Will! said:

Give a few examples.

https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/immune-system-and-health

Quote

It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines. Whereas immunity from disease often follows a single natural infection, immunity from vaccines usually occurs only after several doses.

Then they note, as I noted, that the benefit is that with the vaccine you don't need to experience the risks of catching the disease.

However, millions of people in the UK already have caught the disease and cleared it.  Makes no sense whatsover for those people to be vaccinated.  All downside, no upside.

On top of that, risks to the young are neglible so the risk/reward ratio of vaccination may very well not be worth taking.

Yet the government is on a psychopathic mission to enforce vaccination across the entire population , most likely with vaccine passports used to strongarm people into taking it (plus no doubt, all the regular boosters which they will then say you require) in order to do basic things that people should be able to take for granted.

 

With specific reference to COVID, Israeli study shows slightly better efficacy for natural immunity:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1.full.pdf

Quote

We analyze an updated individual-level database of the entire population of Israel to assess the protection efficacy of both prior infection and vaccination in preventing subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization with COVID-19, severe disease, and death due to COVID-19. Vaccination was highly effective with overall estimated efficacy for documented infection of 92·8% (CI:[92·6, 93·0]); hospitalization 94·2% (CI:[93·6, 94·7]); severe illness 94·4% (CI:[93·6, 95·0]); and death 93·7% (CI:[92·5, 94·7]). Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 94·8% (CI:[94·4, 95·1]); hospitalization 94·1% (CI:[91·9, 95·7]); and severe illness 96·4% (CI:[92·5, 98·3]). Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.

 

Not a huge improvement but still better and once again showing that there's no need to vaccinate the millions who already have been through the disease.

 

Aside from any of that, a bit of critical thinking analysis would tell you that your body is going to come up with a better antibody solution that a narrowly-targetted, hastily developed vaccine.

Still, I'm sure vaccine v2.0 will be along next year and everyone will have to take it unless they want to be denied basic freedoms of movement.

[Sour Mash]

12 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

According to Dr Fauci all the data necessary for the experimentally approved vaccines to gain full approval is in and it is now just a matter of going through the process of granting full approval. 

LOL.  Well, if the sacred pope of science says it, we must just take it as fact.

After all, to challenge the word of Fauci is to challenge science itself (as the great man pointed out) 🤣

[winkie]

Once if they even bother to see it in a country, will they send you back on the next plane home.....do they even know what bit of paper is valid or authentic?.....

 

Just a thought.

[scottbeard]

6 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

Aside from any of that, a bit of critical thinking analysis would tell you that your body is going to come up with a better antibody solution that a narrowly-targetted, hastily developed vaccine.

Still, I'm sure vaccine v2.0 will be along next year and everyone will have to take it unless they want to be denied basic freedoms of movement.

Lol not sure where the science comes from for that,not least because your body might also fail to fight it off and you die!

[Bruce Banner]

41 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

 

Boris Johnson pursuing Covid policy of mass infection that poses ‘danger to the world’, scientists warn

The government's policy now seem to be completely detached from the scientific advice. My wife was recently at a planning meeting allocating resources to Covid over the next few months. The meeting was attended by a SAGE member whose advice was to expect things to get as bad as they were in the second wave and refused to even attempt to defend current policy.

Another infections disease expert pointed out just how mad it was to reopen nightclubs, saying that a venue letting in 1,000 people will have at least 10 infectious people circulating in an environment that is perfect for spreading the virus. He thought it was likely that 10% of people in such a venue would be infected. 

          

BJ's policy may convince some folk, currently unvaccinated, to join the flock.... or maybe it won't. 

Has Whitty gone rogue or is he following instructions?

[slawek]

32 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/immune-system-and-health

Then they note, as I noted, that the benefit is that with the vaccine you don't need to experience the risks of catching the disease.

However, millions of people in the UK already have caught the disease and cleared it.  Makes no sense whatsover for those people to be vaccinated.  All downside, no upside.

On top of that, risks to the young are neglible so the risk/reward ratio of vaccination may very well not be worth taking.

Yet the government is on a psychopathic mission to enforce vaccination across the entire population , most likely with vaccine passports used to strongarm people into taking it (plus no doubt, all the regular boosters which they will then say you require) in order to do basic things that people should be able to take for granted.

 

With specific reference to COVID, Israeli study shows slightly better efficacy for natural immunity:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1.full.pdf

 

Not a huge improvement but still better and once again showing that there's no need to vaccinate the millions who already have been through the disease.

 

Aside from any of that, a bit of critical thinking analysis would tell you that your body is going to come up with a better antibody solution that a narrowly-targetted, hastily developed vaccine.

Still, I'm sure vaccine v2.0 will be along next year and everyone will have to take it unless they want to be denied basic freedoms of movement.

There is reason why the vaccine was slightly worse in this study. They use only 21 days between doses and 7 days after the second dose to classify someone as vaccinated. You need to wait a few weeks longer to build full immunity after the vaccination.  

I've posted earlier today links to many studies showing that vaccination immunity is better than obtained through infection.  All of them show pattern like this below.

[slawek]

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

 

Boris Johnson pursuing Covid policy of mass infection that poses ‘danger to the world’, scientists warn

The government's policy now seem to be completely detached from the scientific advice. My wife was recently at a planning meeting allocating resources to Covid over the next few months. The meeting was attended by a SAGE member whose advice was to expect things to get as bad as they were in the second wave and refused to even attempt to defend current policy.

Another infections disease expert pointed out just how mad it was to reopen nightclubs, saying that a venue letting in 1,000 people will have at least 10 infectious people circulating in an environment that is perfect for spreading the virus. He thought it was likely that 10% of people in such a venue would be infected. 

          

SAGE should issue a statement clearly distancing from this strategy. By being quite they take responsibility for what is going to happen even if they disagree with it. 

[slawek]

Infection rates among 10-29y are almost as high as in Jan. 

[winkie]

Why are the scientific advisors trying hard to make us scared of this virus by saying 'scary numbers'......no need to be scared, just to have respect and act accordingly......no fear, live life, only one life make the most of it.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

1 hour ago, winkie said:

Once if they even bother to see it in a country, will they send you back on the next plane home.....do they even know what bit of paper is valid or authentic?.....

 

Just a thought.

If you are denied entry into a country yes you will be sent back. This has been going on since the dawn of travel. 

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

37 minutes ago, winkie said:

Why are the scientific advisors trying hard to make us scared of this virus by saying 'scary numbers'......no need to be scared, just to have respect and act accordingly......no fear, live life, only one life make the most of it.

Because the infection rate is very high and because there are far fewer restrictions in place more of the onus is on us taking personal responsibility to control the infection ?

It's not about scaring people, its about making people understand that the infection rates are currently high. And that its our responsibility to understand that and do something about it rather than wait for the government to intervene.

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, Sour Mash said:

LOL.  Well, if the sacred pope of science says it, we must just take it as fact.

After all, to challenge the word of Fauci is to challenge science itself (as the great man pointed out) 🤣

I am pretty sure that if he was lying about that we would hear soon enough.

Life must be so simple when you ignore anything you don't want to hear.

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, slawek said:

SAGE should issue a statement clearly distancing from this strategy. By being quite they take responsibility for what is going to happen even if they disagree with it. 

They needed to have done that as soon as Delta started spreading but back then no one would have listened to them because our politicians and media still don't seem to understand exponential. 

Now it's too late.  

[slawek]

6 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

They needed to have done that as soon as Delta started spreading but back then no one would have listened to them because our politicians and media still don't seem to understand exponential. 

Now it's too late.  

It is not too late. A few days can make big difference if R is going to jump 5. 

[nightowl]

57 minutes ago, winkie said:

Why are the scientific advisors trying hard to make us scared of this virus by saying 'scary numbers'......no need to be scared, just to have respect and act accordingly......no fear, live life, only one life make the most of it.

They were talking about 30-100k deaths post unlocking so need the real life numbers do a lot of catching up. Each unlocking step they were worried and nothing much happened so their input to policies has become de-rated.

Deep down I suspect it's more a fear of becoming yesterday's people and there 15 months of relevancy is drawing to a close.  Emails will dry up, media interviews dry up, Twitter followers drift away etc...

[Will!]

6 hours ago, nightowl said:

There was the SIREN study from earlier this year I can think of but no doubt there others out there. 

Whether one is better than the other might be too early to say and may be irrelevant in reality, as the narrative will be synthetic is 'better' anyway.

From the SIREN study (which at that point was only looking at people with non-variant Covid and Alpha variant Covid:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00675-9/fulltext

Quote

Interpretation

A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals.

From the most recent Covid variant technical briefing to look at vaccine effectiveness:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1001354/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_17.pdf

Quote

Table 9. Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation for Alpha variant

Dose 1 78% (64 to 87)

Dose 2 93% (80 to 97)

Once again the facts don't fit your imaginary 'narrative'.

1 hour ago, Sour Mash said:

https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/immune-system-and-health

Then they note, as I noted, that the benefit is that with the vaccine you don't need to experience the risks of catching the disease.

Quote

It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines. Whereas immunity from disease often follows a single natural infection, immunity from vaccines usually occurs only after several doses.

That's comparing completed infections with incomplete courses of immunisation.  Not comparing like with like and so not 'better'.

1 hour ago, Sour Mash said:

However, millions of people in the UK already have caught the disease and cleared it.  Makes no sense whatsover for those people to be vaccinated.  All downside, no upside.

On top of that, risks to the young are neglible so the risk/reward ratio of vaccination may very well not be worth taking.

Yet the government is on a psychopathic mission to enforce vaccination across the entire population , most likely with vaccine passports used to strongarm people into taking it (plus no doubt, all the regular boosters which they will then say you require) in order to do basic things that people should be able to take for granted.

 

With specific reference to COVID, Israeli study shows slightly better efficacy for natural immunity:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1.full.pdf

 

Not a huge improvement but still better and once again showing that there's no need to vaccinate the millions who already have been through the disease.

The Israeli paper is interesting.

Quote

Vaccination was highly effective with overall estimated efficacy for documented infection of 92·8% (CI:[92·6,
93·0]); hospitalization 94·2% (CI:[93·6, 94·7]); severe illness 94·4% (CI:[93·6, 95·0]); and death 93·7% (CI:[92·5, 94·7]). Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 94·8% (CI:[94·4, 95·1]); hospitalization 94·1% (CI:[91·9, 95·7]); and severe illness 96·4% (CI:[92·5, 98·3]). Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.

No statistically significant difference for hospitalisation and severe illness, so similar (in the authors' words) rather than 'better'.  Also it pre-dates Delta which, needless to say, has complicated things.

As for whether previous infection is enough protection, we tested that over the winter and it wasn't.  We're testing it again now and critical care bed occupancy has been increasing exponentially since 5th June with a doubling time of approximately 20 days.  We should know whether we have enough protection in a few weeks.

2 hours ago, Sour Mash said:

Aside from any of that, a bit of critical thinking analysis would tell you that your body is going to come up with a better antibody solution that a narrowly-targetted, hastily developed vaccine.

Well, since your critical thinking skills don't allow you to understand a meta-analysis of Ivermectin, how to compare completed infections with incomplete courses of immunisation nor what a statistically significant difference is I don't think your views on immunology are going to interest anyone much.

[Bob8]

8 hours ago, nightowl said:

Indeed.  There is also little point in collecting yellow card reports or indeed collating information for the phase 4 trial these vaccines are currently undergoing.

Once you've rolled it out to a large number of people it's too late to do anything with the results of this trial 🙄.  Plus nobody in tptb or pharma wants it, in case it's not a good result.

It is done for every pharma medication on the market. It would be bonkers not to do it.

[Bob8]

2 hours ago, Sour Mash said:

https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/immune-system-and-health

Then they note, as I noted, that the benefit is that with the vaccine you don't need to experience the risks of catching the disease.

However, millions of people in the UK already have caught the disease and cleared it.  Makes no sense whatsover for those people to be vaccinated.  All downside, no upside.

On top of that, risks to the young are neglible so the risk/reward ratio of vaccination may very well not be worth taking.

Yet the government is on a psychopathic mission to enforce vaccination across the entire population , most likely with vaccine passports used to strongarm people into taking it (plus no doubt, all the regular boosters which they will then say you require) in order to do basic things that people should be able to take for granted.

 

With specific reference to COVID, Israeli study shows slightly better efficacy for natural immunity:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1.full.pdf

Not a huge improvement but still better and once again showing that there's no need to vaccinate the millions who already have been through the disease.

Aside from any of that, a bit of critical thinking analysis would tell you that your body is going to come up with a better antibody solution that a narrowly-targetted, hastily developed vaccine.

Still, I'm sure vaccine v2.0 will be along next year and everyone will have to take it unless they want to be denied basic freedoms of movement.

Personally, I have made arguments, and reflected I did not feel certain of them. In your case, you are aware on some level that you are making things up.

We really do need as many people vaccinated as possible. Even if they have had it, the immune response ca ne weaker. Not everyone can be vaccinated effectively, and they will need protection. Equally, some will not accept the vaccine and they will still need protection.

When you write "Aside from any of that, a bit of critical thinking analysis would..." you are citing guess work. You have no expertise and we do not have the data. So, no.

There are plenty of jobs in healthcare where you are required to take a Hep B vaccine. Oddly, you were not outraged by this before, so I assume you have been whipped into this hysteria by recent Facebook posts and other social media.

[winkie]

56 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Because the infection rate is very high and because there are far fewer restrictions in place more of the onus is on us taking personal responsibility to control the infection ?

It's not about scaring people, its about making people understand that the infection rates are currently high. And that its our responsibility to understand that and do something about it rather than wait for the government to intervene.

Completely understand that......infections are high, what does that say about the high proportion of people being vaccinated not only once but twice? Are the vaccines therefore effective enough?.....are all those 'infected' having to go to hospital suffering from a near death experience or even death?......will those who know they have a higher risk of infection be responsible and see they protect themselves from the risk of infection that might affect them badly, stay away from risky high infection and high population density places.

Will those who put themselves in a risky situations be responsible enough to stay away from those they know might not be able to defend themselves sufficiently  from the virus?

 

 

[Confusion of VIs]

4 minutes ago, winkie said:

Completely understand that......infections are high, what does that say about the high proportion of people being vaccinated not only once but twice? Are the vaccines therefore effective enough?.....are all those 'infected' having to go to hospital suffering from a near death experience or even death?......will those who know they have a higher risk of infection be responsible and see they protect themselves from the risk of infection that might affect them badly, stay away from risky high infection and high population density places.

Will those who put themselves in a risky situations be responsible enough to stay away from those they know might not be able to defend themselves sufficiently  from the virus? 

What do you think the chances of that are?

      Will an 18yr old self isolate after visiting a nightclub 

      Will an antivaxxer stay off public transport and out of bars