Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

[anonguest]

Just now, Confusion of VIs said:

 

The younger groups are not at near zero risk from Covid, they are at a near zero risk of dying but their risk of developing long Covid symptoms is still significant.   

I refer the Hon. gentleman to the post (and link) I made some hours ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58410584

[pig]

15 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Has anyone thought of asking the elderly if they want their lives to be prioritised over those of their grandchildren?

Yes, but as you are old your opinion does not matter. Suck it up.

[anonguest]

Just now, Bruce Banner said:

Has anyone thought of asking the elderly if they want their lives to be prioritised over those of their grandchildren?

Some entitled pensioners and their lunch…

Edited September 1, 2021 by anonguest

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

14 hours ago, Ah-so said:

I was unaware that we knew this as a fact or that it was even hypothesised. Not saying you're wrong, but was wondering where you heard this. 

The original insight came from individuals receiving convalescent blood plasma, i.e. where they were immune compromised, got ill with COVID, and then had antibodies from a healthy recovered COVID patient injected into them: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/954990/s1015-sars-cov-2-immunity-escape-variants.pdf

This was actually found in a Cambridge University study: https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/study-highlights-risk-of-new-sars-cov-2-mutations-emerging-during-chronic-infection

Now the description above is not identical to what i am saying as the paper only implies the issue and skirts a round it a bit, also highlighting the interval between first and second doses.  But the premise is identical, i.e. given a poor immune response and insufficient antibodies to kill off the virus(be they natural or from the vaccine ) then via natural selection of variants that arise over time in an enduring chronic infection in that individual, then escape variants for those antibodies will be produced.

To me this is the same mechanism as antibiotic resistance in bacteria, i.e selecting those best able to evade the antibiotic.

Any, it may be partly be fair to blame Hancock and Boris for spreading out the doses. But actually the fundamental issue is with the immune compromised, both in terms of the death rate and in terms of continuing the pandemic.

Whilst i often come across as a total bar steward, I am quite often right and not afraid to say what i think, even as risk of distressing or offending.

(My wife has even stopped asking me for advice on whether a particular dress looks good 🤨)

 

 

 

[Ah-so]

1 hour ago, Dr Doom said:

Seems like a bit of a false analogy really given there's no solid evidence that vaccinating children is going to stop old people (or any people) from dying. A better analogy would be killing random children for no reason, which I guess you'd be in favour of. 

No, because children also die of COVID-19, albeit in small numbers. 

[anonguest]

Just now, Ah-so said:

No, because children also die of COVID-19, albeit in small numbers. 

More die in road traffic accidents. Should we stop them riding in cars?

[Dr Doom]

7 minutes ago, anonguest said:

More die in road traffic accidents. Should we stop them riding in cars?

They could also kill someone else with the car, an old person even. 

So the answer is yes we should stop them driving cars, to protect others, for the greater good....blah blah etc

[Ah-so]

8 minutes ago, anonguest said:

More die in road traffic accidents. Should we stop them riding in cars?

No, because because society doesn't have a zero risk appetite to children dying of it would be disproportionate to other priorities. 

[anonguest]

Just now, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Whilst i often come across as a total bar steward, I am quite often right and not afraid to say what i think, even as risk of distressing or offending.

(My wife has even stopped asking me for advice on whether a particular dress looks good 🤨)

 

It's a lonely club we belong to isn't it?  😉

[Confusion of VIs]

56 minutes ago, Dr Doom said:

16-19 year olds 1/6000 are developing myocarditis 

how anyone can continue to defend this is really beyond me

That's not surprising, you do seem unable or unwilling to put information in context. 

You could have answered your own question by looking at the NHS or CDC websites for data on the relative risk of developing myocarditis via the vaccine of from a Covid infection. After reviewing the available studies the NHS concluded that around 2.6% of young men with Covid develop myocarditis. More generally for those who require hospitalisation it is around 18%.

You might then ask how, as the risk of developing it from the vaccine is around 150 times less than from a Covid infection, anyone could defend not giving 16-19 yr olds the option to take the vaccine. 

 

[anonguest]

Just now, Confusion of VIs said:

That's not surprising, you do seem unable or unwilling to put information in context. 

You could have answered your own question by looking at the NHS or CDC websites for data on the relative risk of developing myocarditis via the vaccine of from a Covid infection. After reviewing the available studies the NHS concluded that around 2.6% of young men with Covid develop myocarditis. More generally for those who require hospitalisation it is around 18%.

You might then ask how, as the risk of developing it from the vaccine is around 150 times less than from a Covid infection, anyone could defend not giving 16-19 yr olds the option to take the vaccine. 

 

BUT you, and others, implicitly assume by saying this that IF one does not get the jab they will contract Covid the very next day.  Whereas in reality, depending a persons own individual circumstances, they may not contract Covid for another 10 years.  I personally have not had a flu jab OR got flu foralmost that amount of time.  To the best of my knowledge/memory I NEVER had flu during my teens.  Had flu, proper, twice in my thirties - which I put down to daily commuting on the London Underground in rush hour packed carriages.

Edited September 1, 2021 by anonguest

[anonguest]

Just now, Ah-so said:

No, because because society doesn't have a zero risk appetite to children dying of it would be disproportionate to other priorities. 

I know. It was a tongue in cheek response.

[Confusion of VIs]

40 minutes ago, anonguest said:

I refer the Hon. gentleman to the post (and link) I made some hours ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58410584

My wife will be happy to hear that as she is currently involved with trying to resource a specialist paediatric Covid unit in her trust. She will probably wonder why across the trust the current paediatric beds are filling up with kids allegedly with long Covid symptoms. 

NB The NHS document I posted recently that said 15 new specialist paediatric centres were required was based on 4% of kids developing long Covid. 

Have you actually read of the article, only 13% replied to the survey and the 2% figure was based on the assumption that all those who actually had long Covid would have replied. Sounds like bunk to me.   

[scottbeard]

2 hours ago, Dr Doom said:

Seems like a bit of a false analogy really given there's no solid evidence that vaccinating children is going to stop old people (or any people) from dying. A better analogy would be killing random children for no reason, which I guess you'd be in favour of. 

It’s just a thought experiment at this point - I’ve said about four times already on this thread that the only reason to vaccinate children is if you think the benefits to them outweigh the risks.

As to whether that is the case, I defer to medical researchers rather than internet randoms.

 

[anonguest]

Just now, Confusion of VIs said:

Have you actually read of the article, only 13% replied to the survey and the 2% figure was based on the assumption that all those who actually had long Covid would have replied. Sounds like bunk to me.   

Perhaps the other 87% didn't respond because there was no long covid to speak of that concerned them?

Edited September 1, 2021 by anonguest

[Confusion of VIs]

This really is a response from someone going down the rabbit hole

7 minutes ago, anonguest said:

BUT you, and others, implicitly assume by saying this that IF one does not get the jab they will contract Covid the very next day. 

Complete nonsense.

It's reasonable to assume that before this is over the large majority of us will contract Covid but even if only 10% did the relative risk assessment would still be in favour of the vaccine. Surely you can do the maths.

7 minutes ago, anonguest said:

Whereas in reality, depending a persons own individual circumstances, they may not contract Covid for another 10 years.  I personally have not had a flu jab OR got flu foralmost that amount of time.  To the best of my knowledge/memory I NEVER had flu during my teens.  Had flu, proper, twice in my thirties - which I put down to daily commuting on the London Underground in rush hour packed carriages.

 Covid is not Flu and far more infectious, so this is irrelevant. 

I think I have had proper flu twice, also in my thirties, but both my kids have already had Covid. Several of their friends have managed to catch both the alpha and delta varient  

[Dr Doom]

31 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

That's not surprising, you do seem unable or unwilling to put information in context. 

You could have answered your own question by looking at the NHS or CDC websites for data on the relative risk of developing myocarditis via the vaccine of from a Covid infection. After reviewing the available studies the NHS concluded that around 2.6% of young men with Covid develop myocarditis. More generally for those who require hospitalisation it is around 18%.

You might then ask how, as the risk of developing it from the vaccine is around 150 times less than from a Covid infection, anyone could defend not giving 16-19 yr olds the option to take the vaccine. 

I see your point, all these statistics do seem to be somewhat fluid though on both sides.
See this article from about a month ago.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25133462-800-myocarditis-is-more-common-after-covid-19-infection-than-vaccination/

COVID cohort: 450 cases per million ~ 1/2000

Vaccine cohort: 67 cases per million ~ 1/15000

 

And the COVID cohort has now jumped suddenly to 1/5 ?!

That would suggest there are about 1.2 million people suffering post-covid myocarditis in the UK. 

[Confusion of VIs]

6 minutes ago, anonguest said:

Perhaps the other 87% didn't respond because there was no long covid to speak of that concerned them?

On the other hand perhaps those who were suffering from it were too ill to be bothered filling in surveys

There are lots of perhaps and assumptions in the article, that equals bunk in my book. 

 

[anonguest]

Just now, Confusion of VIs said:

I think I have had proper flu twice, also in my thirties, but both my kids have already had Covid. Several of their friends have managed to catch both the alpha and delta varient  

How many are still suffering?

[pig]

1 hour ago, anonguest said:

The descent into barbarity begins when children take second place to pensioners - and society is shaped around the needs (and desires!) of the latter rather than the former.

Well almost I guess - clearly its when the false fear of that starts happening in your head, prompting a panicked descent

 

[anonguest]

Just now, Confusion of VIs said:

On the other hand perhaps those who were suffering from it were too ill to be bothered filling in surveys

There are lots of perhaps and assumptions in the article, that equals bunk in my book. 

 

Hasn't that been the case from the very beginning with a lot of aspects of this pandemic?

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

On 29/08/2021 at 16:11, anonguest said:

No. That is NOT what I said.  I SAID that...."as big a culprit in the whole 'misinformation'  hoo hah is the, especially, American woke/PC cr*p about how its a mortal sin to tell people to their face that they are fat"

All this obession about whether this or that wonder treatment works, or if the virus is real or not, etc....is almost secondary to an, arguably, equally big problem of a generation+ of people being allowed to think that living fat unhealthy lifestyles has no consequences. That is another form of 'misinformation'.  
Even If you didn't I have no doubt in my mind that, even if articulated in a vulgar fashion, plenty other people here understood the point perfectly well - so won't waste further bandwidth defending that particular post of mine any further.

I agree 100%
 

Failing to fat shame and acknowledge the issue is a form of passive misinformation.

[anonguest]

Just now, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

I agree 100%
 

Failing to fat shame and acknowledge the issue is a form of passive misinformation.

Absolutely. I feel no shame whatsoever when someone tut tuts and  points at my midsection whilst enjoying a chocolate Hobnob.  🙂

Edited September 1, 2021 by anonguest

[Confusion of VIs]

2 minutes ago, Dr Doom said:

I see your point, all these statistics do seem to be somewhat fluid though on both sides.
See this article from about a month ago.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25133462-800-myocarditis-is-more-common-after-covid-19-infection-than-vaccination/

COVID cohort: 450 cases per million ~ 1/2000

Vaccine cohort: 67 cases per million ~ 1/15000

 

And the COVID cohort has now jumped suddenly to 1/5 ?!

That would suggest there are about 1.2 million people suffering post-covid myocarditis in the UK. 

I would rather use the figures produced by the likes of the NHS or CDC, who look at all the credible studies, than individual studies.

Your maths seem way off but it is possible there already has been a large number of cases.  Although myocarditis sounds scary its not that uncommon and most cases are effectively asymptomatic and resolve themselves, most of the ones that are serious enough to be diagnosed respond well to treatment.  

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

34 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

It’s just a thought experiment at this point - I’ve said about four times already on this thread that the only reason to vaccinate children is if you think the benefits to them outweigh the risks.

As to whether that is the case, I defer to medical researchers rather than internet randoms.

 

 

Yes, I think that is fair. Kids generally get no benefit, so why get them to accept a small additional risk, unless they are at more risk themselves than normal.

The immune compromised element woukd still worry me from an escape variant standpoint, but do fat kids get more ill than thin ones for example?

(on the oldies eating the kids and fat kids)

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by Mikhail Liebenstein