Covid - is there trouble ahead? New mutation and travel bans.

[henry the king]

5 minutes ago, slawek said:

Ignoring the field study results?

It takes time to test positive, then go to hospital. It also takes time to get a statistically significant result. 

The boosters show they biologically work after 1 week. So you will have the protection by 1 week. Will that show up in a study? Probably not. Because if you are going to hospital 7 days after your booster then you caught the virus before you had the protection. 

There is a lag from cases -> hospitalisation -> ICU -> Death. SO it is very difficult for the vaccines to show impact by 7 or even 14 days regarding severe illness. 

But after 1 week you do have the antibodies and the cellular response. Almost all of it. This is a biological fact. These are the things a vaccine does to protect you from covid. 

You are arguing black is white. If you are wanting a study which shows vaccines stop hospital admissions or even cases after 7-14 days in control vs treatment groups then you will never get this (and I suspect you know this), because it takes time to get symptoms/test positive/go to hospital. Just admit you were wrong and move on. Its not a big deal.

[Brave New World]

19 minutes ago, slawek said:

Not sure what you mean. You didn't post anything about HK study in a reply to any of my posts.

I was calling a bluff in a specific case, the evidence that booster works well after 7 days.

I am not ignoring the HK study. It is a lab study so it doesn't necessary translate into clinical situation. It is a hint that it could be milder but it doesn't prove it. You need  take into context of other studies and weight it accordingly. For an example the clinical studies are more credible than a lab result and those (SA and UK) paint a mixed view about Omicron mildness regarding hospitalisation. There is no enough data to make any credible claim regarding Omicron death risk yet.

  

"A hint".....in a study by global experts in studying viruses, a study that clearly shows this to be  bronchial based and not as invasive and therefore pneumonia oriented.

Big, big difference and just trying not calm your panic. But do carry on if you cannot see the obvious, tbf like the media at present.

[markyh]

Hmmmm. So the NHS just called me as the parent of a child who has just tested positive for Covid through a PCR test, got the results a few hours ago, test would have been with them on Friday. 

Started asking questions the NHS wants details and names of who my Kid might have been in contact with, dates , times etc, I just said. "Go ****** yourself i not answering those questions" and hung up. 

The cheek of it. 

 

[pig]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

I was talking fairly generally, I fully get your point, there's no particular reason that a mild variant should have emerged at this point. There's no reason why any mutation shouldn't be either so it can't be ruled out. So I think the behavioural changes (which from an evolutionary perspective are the equivalent of more people dying - why there are fewer people nearby to infect is irrelevant from the evolutionary perspective) will favour a mild variant that people don't notice, but it's a roll of the dice whether one actually turns up, and that's the bit that takes time.

So people who say evolution means Omicron must be milder are barking up the wrong tree, but it's not implausible that it could be and the odds favour a mild variant being successful over a serious one.

Agreed.

[wighty]

4 minutes ago, markyh said:

Hmmmm. So the NHS just called me as the parent of a child who has just tested positive for Covid through a PCR test, got the results a few hours ago, test would have been with them on Friday. 

Started asking questions the NHS wants details and names of who my Kid might have been in contact with, dates , times etc, I just said. "Go ****** yourself i not answering those questions" and hung up. 

The cheek of it. 

 

Just love you, Markyh!

[PeanutButter]

6 minutes ago, markyh said:

Hmmmm. So the NHS just called me as the parent of a child who has just tested positive for Covid through a PCR test, got the results a few hours ago, test would have been with them on Friday. 

Started asking questions the NHS wants details and names of who my Kid might have been in contact with, dates , times etc, I just said. "Go ****** yourself i not answering those questions" and hung up. 

The cheek of it. 

 

So you swore at a minimum wage phone worker doing their job, probably one of dozens of little tyrants they have to endure remotely cursing them daily.  

Feel good? Puffing the old chest out with pure British pride? 

Gosh I take it back, just seen you’re on the New Year honours list, well done. 

This is definitely what made the empire great.

[coypondboy]

17 minutes ago, markyh said:

Hmmmm. So the NHS just called me as the parent of a child who has just tested positive for Covid through a PCR test, got the results a few hours ago, test would have been with them on Friday. 

Started asking questions the NHS wants details and names of who my Kid might have been in contact with, dates , times etc, I just said. "Go ****** yourself i not answering those questions" and hung up. 

The cheek of it. 

 

Good excuse for your kid to have some extra time off school in the new year as the school is closed due to omnicron

[pig]

1 hour ago, Bruce Banner said:

I thought it was exciting, yet another jab to refuse.

This is in no way meant to elicit sympathy for BJ but could it be the the ERG have a gun to his premierships head ? A  Brexit and Covid crossover.

Hence BJ the jabjabwocky - (practically any other measure gets him in trouble) and Frosts peculiar resignation excuse.

[Philosopher]

2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

I was talking fairly generally, I fully get your point, there's no particular reason that a mild variant should have emerged at this point. There's no reason why any mutation shouldn't be either so it can't be ruled out. So I think the behavioural changes (which from an evolutionary perspective are the equivalent of more people dying - why there are fewer people nearby to infect is irrelevant from the evolutionary perspective) will favour a mild variant that people don't notice, but it's a roll of the dice whether one actually turns up, and that's the bit that takes time.

So people who say evolution means Omicron must be milder are barking up the wrong tree, but it's not implausible that it could be and the odds favour a mild variant being successful over a serious one.

If this is the case, all this panic around Omicron is actually counterproductive, as we would be making harder for a likely milder variant to predominate. 

I certainly do not recall this much panic over the Delta variant back in May / June, which does appear to cause more severe disease than the previous variants.

[slawek]

3 hours ago, Brave New World said:

There clearly is both the data (SA, Gauteng, Denmark and let's face it the last few days of hospitalisation rates) and the scientific study (Hong Kong university).

Take your head out of the media echo chamber of fear.

SA/Gauteng study show 20% lower risk of hospitalisation among adults but 100 higher among children 

Denmark show a comparable risk of hospitalisation

UK data doesn't show lower risk of hospitalisation

HK lab study is a hint that it could be milder

[slawek]

1 hour ago, Brave New World said:

"A hint".....in a study by global experts in studying viruses, a study that clearly shows this to be  bronchial based and not as invasive and therefore pneumonia oriented.

Big, big difference and just trying not calm your panic. But do carry on if you cannot see the obvious, tbf like the media at present.

I am not questioning the study but a conclusion the virus must be milder. There is a long way from a specific lab study to a clinical result. For an example the virus could attack more other vital cells not tested in the study, cause a stronger immune reaction leading to complications etc. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by slawek

[winkie]

 

[Timm]

1 hour ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Yeah sure you did, that's why you've repeated said the same thing. 🤣🤡

Good spot @Riedquat. You called out his lies. 

To be fair to Henry, I think he got a bit mixed up, rather than lied.

I think he was trying to say that Omicron is Worse (at infecting the lungs)

I'm not sure English is his first language, but he has been hailing Omicron as "Nature's Vaccine", which is consistent with thinking it might not be all that deadly. Not to say he is right on this of course - a bit too early to nail one's colours to the mast IMHO.

[rollover]

Labour will support new Covid restrictions ‘in national interest’

Labour is ready to support new restrictions to stem the spread of the Omicron variant of Covid-19, so long as they come with an adequate support package for those affected.

To discuss the fast-rising tide of infections, Mr Johnson has promised to recall parliament for a fresh vote if any new regulations are required to step up action.

There are expectations of an even larger revolt if the prime minister asks MPs to back tougher curbs, such as limits on indoor mixing of households or a curfew on pubs and restaurants opening.

Independent

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Omicron severity in South Africa - a thread: 
https://twitter.com/SteveMillerOC/status/1472642860176400387

I am still lurking but on deadline at uni - but if there's anything you read today, read this. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by gruffydd

[slawek]

1 hour ago, henry the king said:

It takes time to test positive, then go to hospital. It also takes time to get a statistically significant result. 

The boosters show they biologically work after 1 week. So you will have the protection by 1 week. Will that show up in a study? Probably not. Because if you are going to hospital 7 days after your booster then you caught the virus before you had the protection. 

There is a lag from cases -> hospitalisation -> ICU -> Death. SO it is very difficult for the vaccines to show impact by 7 or even 14 days regarding severe illness. 

But after 1 week you do have the antibodies and the cellular response. Almost all of it. This is a biological fact. These are the things a vaccine does to protect you from covid. 

You are arguing black is white. If you are wanting a study which shows vaccines stop hospital admissions or even cases after 7-14 days in control vs treatment groups then you will never get this (and I suspect you know this), because it takes time to get symptoms/test positive/go to hospital. Just admit you were wrong and move on. Its not a big deal.

It take your point about lags. However

a) the same lag logic applies to the accelerated booster program, many people can get infected before a booster dose, so 7 days after the dose many could end up in hospital not because booster doesn't work but because they were vaccinated too late.

b) the study excluded 7 days after the booster,

"Outcomes were ascertained in the period starting 7 days after receipt of the third dose in the vaccinated, similar to the period used to determine full vaccination after the second dose, and until the end of follow-up."

So at the end booster is not very effective at least 7 days after the dose.

1 hour ago, henry the king said:

But after 1 week you do have the antibodies and the cellular response.

This claim is wrong because the study tested cellular response after 14 days not 1 week.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

11 minutes ago, rollover said:

Labour will support new Covid restrictions ‘in national interest’

Labour is ready to support new restrictions to stem the spread of the Omicron variant of Covid-19, so long as they come with an adequate support package for those affected.

To discuss the fast-rising tide of infections, Mr Johnson has promised to recall parliament for a fresh vote if any new regulations are required to step up action.

There are expectations of an even larger revolt if the prime minister asks MPs to back tougher curbs, such as limits on indoor mixing of households or a curfew on pubs and restaurants opening.

Independent

The Tories are clearly imploding... some of these backbenchers seem to imagine opposing restrictions will win them electoral support... they clearly don't read the opinion polls. 

We have Tories in Ireland - the equivalent... but they do public health much better... clearly there's a level of decency in politics back home that Britain lacks... down the crapper they slide. 

[Brave New World]

50 minutes ago, slawek said:

SA/Gauteng study show 20% lower risk of hospitalisation among adults but 100 higher among children 

Denmark show a comparable risk of hospitalisation

UK data doesn't show lower risk of hospitalisation

HK lab study is a hint that it could be milder

 

Disagree and factual evidence re SA shows this not to the the case.

HK lab "hint"....nah it doesn't but circles on a message board isn't my thing. Welcome to your fear.

 

To the poster saying about fear of this Vs Delta variant. Absolutely this. But then scientific studies by a globally renowned institute with decades of experience of researching the virulence and impact of viruses are painted on here as a "hint" says much about this latest wave of extreme and polarised mindset.

Approaching as pitiful as the denialists earlier this year. Arpeggio has polarised stablemates here.

 

 

 

[slawek]

7 minutes ago, Brave New World said:

Disagree and factual evidence re SA shows this not to the the case.

Show me those factual evidence, maybe I missed something.

10 minutes ago, Brave New World said:

To the poster saying about fear of this Vs Delta variant. Absolutely this. But then scientific studies by a globally renowned institute with decades of experience of researching the virulence and impact of viruses are painted on here as a "hint" says much about this latest wave of extreme and polarised mindset.

Have you read the study? They say themselves that it "may be an indicator of lower disease severity" not it must be.

http://www.med.hku.hk/en/news/press/20211215-omicron-sars-cov-2-infection

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, Philosopher said:

If this is the case, all this panic around Omicron is actually counterproductive, as we would be making harder for a likely milder variant to predominate. 

I certainly do not recall this much panic over the Delta variant back in May / June, which does appear to cause more severe disease than the previous variants.

Looking back there was a fair bit over Delta and vaccines being less effective against it...

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

13 minutes ago, Brave New World said:

 

Disagree and factual evidence re SA shows this not to the the case.

HK lab "hint"....nah it doesn't but circles on a message board isn't my thing. Welcome to your fear.

 

To the poster saying about fear of this Vs Delta variant. Absolutely this. But then scientific studies by a globally renowned institute with decades of experience of researching the virulence and impact of viruses are painted on here as a "hint" says much about this latest wave of extreme and polarised mindset.

Approaching as pitiful as the denialists earlier this year. Arpeggio has polarised stablemates here.

 

 

 

No clear evidence it is milder yet. No clear evidence it is worse. Some hints.

Media report the same. That's prudence in the face of lack of knowledge.

Virus multiples so fast that if you assume it's going to be milder, by the time you find out it isn't you are stuffed.

So better to proceed with caution until clear evidence is available. In my opinion anyway.

We should know the answer within a week or two.

 

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

14 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

No clear evidence it is milder yet. No clear evidence it is worse. Some hints.

Media report the same. That's prudence in the face of lack of knowledge.

Virus multiples so fast that if you assume it's going to be milder, by the time you find out it isn't you are stuffed.

So better to proceed with caution until clear evidence is available. In my opinion anyway.

We should know the answer within a week or two.

 

 

I'm all up for taking the risk.

I'm happy with my robust immunity.

 

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

5 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

 

I'm all up for taking the risk.

I'm happy with my robust immunity.

 

Government doesn't tailor its actions just to suit you though.

There are 70 odd million people in the UK, and it tries to do what is in the overall best interest.

For me, I see it as an unequal trade, because if you lock down early and the disease turns out to be mild, you can release the lockdown pretty much instantaneously. Whereas if you lock down late and the disease turns out to be bad, you need to maintain the lockdown for much much longer to have the same effect.

I find it pretty ironic about how last year everyone was talking about how the Tories did not lock down early enough before Xmas, leading to the second wave and the huge peak in deaths in Jan/Feb because of no Christmas lockdown.

This time it seems to be about "don't lockdown at any cost" until it all goes pear shaped of course, at which point I'll take a wild stab in the dark and say everyone will blame Boris for killing granny.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

1 hour ago, Timm said:

To be fair to Henry, I think he got a bit mixed up, rather than lied.

I think he was trying to say that Omicron is Worse (at infecting the lungs)

I'm not sure English is his first language, but he has been hailing Omicron as "Nature's Vaccine", which is consistent with thinking it might not be all that deadly. Not to say he is right on this of course - a bit too early to nail one's colours to the mast IMHO.

Well if he’s not lied then he has a very basic grasp of the queens english. Which in turn means that you cannot trust his capability of analysing, interpreting, and disseminating data. Anyone reading his posting should now be taking them with a VERY large spoonful of salt. 

[zugzwang]

3 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Government doesn't tailor its actions just to suit you though.

There are 70 odd million people in the UK, and it tries to do what is in the overall best interest.

For me, I see it as an unequal trade, because if you lock down early and the disease turns out to be mild, you can release the lockdown pretty much instantaneously. Whereas if you lock down late and the disease turns out to be bad, you need to maintain the lockdown for much much longer to have the same effect.

I find it pretty ironic about how last year everyone was talking about how the Tories did not lock down early enough before Xmas, leading to the second wave and the huge peak in deaths in Jan/Feb because of no Christmas lockdown.

This time it seems to be about "don't lockdown at any cost" until it all goes pear shaped of course, at which point I'll take a wild stab in the dark and say everyone will blame Boris for killing granny.

 

Go hard and go early to isolate the organism and limit transmission. That's the winning formula that Johnson and his idiot crew have spent two years looking past.

Having done that you then need to answer the following four questions:

1. What is it?

2. What does it do?

3. Where does it come from?

4. How do we kill it?