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

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

5 minutes ago, henry the king said:

And her position was not to open in July which was proven to be wrong, as that helped up massively and will help us vs Omicron because we have more super immune people (vaccine + infection). 

Very few public health academics would argue for natural infection as a solution, as you well know. 

Edited December 14, 2021 by gruffydd

[MancTom]

Just now, MARTINX9 said:

Do you have any evidence most of them are not?

All I am asking for is honesty and transparency - like the data being issued in South Africa about these cases.

Are they all 30 year old footballers and athletes gasping for breath and close to death - or are they sitting in a bed with a broken leg with no symptoms or a few sniffles?

Who was the person who died 'with Omicron' yesterday - apparently all our politicians are giving their condolences to the family so presumably they must all know if the person who died was a 30 year old athlete and died gasping for breath or a 95 year old who was terminally ill with cancer and therefore Omicron wasn't the cause.

I am just asking for honesty and transparency about the cases and how severe they are or not?

Because don't you think we deserve that? Obviously you think its fine to scare people literally to death in some cases - because yesterday 18 times more people committed suicide in this country than died 'with omicron'.

I know those suicide cases don't matter to our leaders it seems - but how many people are being driven to the edge by the scare and fear tactics.

Just be honest - and tell the truth!

I don't object to them providing this information. I just doubt it going to turn out all the doctors, scientists and politicians have conspired to pretend there is a problem. So I would suspect you will find 2 or 3 cases where its a broken leg then caught it and wasn't ill and the rest are really actually ill with only covid.

[hotblack42]

4 minutes ago, henry the king said:

The people you are quoting are well known zero-covid "experts". So they will present you with data, and an interpretation of the data, which favours their view of zero-covid and lockdowns

Usually I ignore these people & their fans by either swiping up after seeing how the posts going, or using ignore functions.  Saves a lot of time & energy.

Threads get more compact & reasoned.

[Brave New World]

16 minutes ago, henry the king said:

You are stirring up fear based on zero covid radicals. It is really negative because people can read what you are saying and gets anxiety about it. It is similar to spreading anti-vax propaganda. Just from the other side.

Sorry if I came across as rude though. I respect you. I just think on this issue you are losing credibility by just spamming things from radicals and demeaning others who disagree because you follow the "experts". It isn't a conspiracy to label her a far left radical and a zero-covid radical at all. She was the lead of the group saying the July re-opening was dangerous and immoral. She was horrendously wrong on that, as she has been many times. 

And her perma-lockdown ideas will just cause more suffering than it alleviates at this stage. Obviously if you want to limit covid you do a lockdown and do zero-covid. But there are other things to consider in society. That is what she does not understand because she is an extremist who cannot see beyond the single issue of covid.

Let's hope your reserve scornful responses for the likes of Arpeggio and its constant bombardment of posts eh?!

[henry the king]

Just now, gruffydd said:

Very few public health academics would argue for natural infection as a solution, as well know. 

You have this thing around "experts" which is an unhealthy mindset. You have to take their views and think more broadly about why they are saying them.

For example, from a personal level there is a much higher cost to being wrongly casual about Omicron as there is to being wrongly worried about Omicron.

But for society and even public health the situation is way different. If un-needed restrictions were implemented now then people who die early as a result. The country would be less well off, and spending more limited in the future on everything including health. People would miss out on things that make life worthwhile. An extremist is unable to consider the wider implications of things as they are too obsessed with a single issue. 

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

6 minutes ago, hotblack42 said:

A lot of impatient, cross people on here & in general.  It's quite reasonable to assume that it will take at least a year to fully understand, treat & vaccinate effectively against Omicron.  The existing vaccines are being re-worked & new mutations will probably emerge.  The new normal is dealing with the virus' variants using an array of strategies for several years more & the sooner we get used to the idea the better.

Absolutely right. Nail on head. We can hope for the best... but in the meantime we need to be cautious and intelligent in the way we work to blunt the impact of the virus. 

Working on a Zero Covid strategy is logical, too... it might work, it might not, but it's worth exporing... would love to see this blighter of a virus eradicated at some point! https://www.endcoronavirus.org/

Edited December 14, 2021 by gruffydd

[Bruce Banner]

5 minutes ago, gruffydd said:

Very few public health academics would argue for natural infection as a solution, as you well know. 

But do they take quality of life into account?

[scottbeard]

16 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Given the choice I'd rather have a mild case of Covid once a year than three or four annual jabs.

Even though I'm offered one every year, I don't have an annual flu jab, preferring to get my immunity the natural way. Yes, there is a slight risk of death, but it is a risk that I can tolerate.

I do find this really odd though - because the point of the flu jab is to stop you getting flu symptoms AT ALL. 

Once you've actually HAD the flu the immunity only stops you getting the same strain again that winter.

I can understand why someone would rather have a mild case of Covid than three annual Covid jabs.   I can understand why someone would rather take their chances with flu than have a flu jab.

I do still find it harder to understand why someone would turn down jabs in order to get natural immunity, because once you've actually HAD the disease the risk event has happened!  The only value of immunity is stopping you getting disease.  But you've had to HAVE the disease to get it.  It's like saying you'll buy an umbrella - but only the day after it rains.  Sure you will be prevented from getting wet going forwards, but at the cost of definitely getting wet once.  It seems to make less sense than buying one now so you never get wet, or not buying one at all because you don't mind getting wet.

 

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

1 minute ago, henry the king said:

You have this thing around "experts" which is an unhealthy mindset. You have to take their views and think more broadly about why they are saying them.

For example, from a personal level there is a much higher cost to being wrongly casual about Omicron as there is to being wrongly worried about Omicron.

But for society and even public health the situation is way different. If un-needed restrictions were implemented now then people who die early as a result. The country would be less well off, and spending more limited in the future on everything including health. People would miss out on things that make life worthwhile. An extremist is unable to consider the wider implications of things as they are too obsessed with a single issue. 

I have a thing about peer-reviewed research - sure - what else can we work from right now? Oddly enough, the "experts" tend to do the research. 

I agree that people tend to work in their own specific fields, and there isn't enough integrated work re: impacts - e.g. economic impact, health, etc. - the complexity is huge and we need Systems Engineers to analyse issues in the round. 

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

1 minute ago, Bruce Banner said:

But do they take quality of life into account?

Just covered that in my last response... not really - we have a real problem dealing with complexities. One major issues re: research in universities these days is the funding tends to be incredibly focused so there is a lack of broad, systemic research re: impacts. You make a good point. We need a broader and more integrated approach. 

Instead, what tends to happen is people become entrenched in their own field of expertise... 

[Bob8]

52 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Given the choice I'd rather have a mild case of Covid once a year than three or four annual jabs.

Even though I'm offered one every year, I don't have an annual flu jab, preferring to get my immunity the natural way. Yes, there is a slight risk of death, but it is a risk that I can tolerate.

I quite understand that.

I would too, were it not for the danger of spreading the infection to other people.

I just do not see that we have such a choice.

Wanting to stay alive is natural, failing in that is very natural too.

[Bob8]

8 minutes ago, henry the king said:

You have this thing around "experts" which is an unhealthy mindset. You have to take their views and think more broadly about why they are saying them.

For example, from a personal level there is a much higher cost to being wrongly casual about Omicron as there is to being wrongly worried about Omicron.

But for society and even public health the situation is way different. If un-needed restrictions were implemented now then people who die early as a result. The country would be less well off, and spending more limited in the future on everything including health. People would miss out on things that make life worthwhile. An extremist is unable to consider the wider implications of things as they are too obsessed with a single issue. 

You are more upset he is not taking you as an authority.

If you had done the work, we would respect that more too.

[henry the king]

7 minutes ago, gruffydd said:

Absolutely right. Nail on head. We can hope for the best... but in the meantime we need to be cautious and intelligent in the way we work to blunt the impact of the virus. 

Working on a Zero Covid strategy is logical, too... it might work, it might not, but it's worth exporing... would love to see this blighter of a virus eradicated at some point! https://www.endcoronavirus.org/

Its not worth exploring. It is madness. 

[henry the king]

10 minutes ago, Brave New World said:

Let's hope your reserve scornful responses for the likes of Arpeggio and its constant bombardment of posts eh?!

Both anti-vaxxers and zero-covid people have an element of truth/logic to what they say. I am not saying they don't. Just, in the big picture, I believe both to be completely wrong. 

[Sour Mash]

On 26/11/2021 at 14:55, Clarky Cat said:

Where is the evidence for this? While a natural infection will produce a broader range of antibodies and T-cell responses than a vaccination it is highly variable. Coronaviruses are very good at immune evasion and some people will have very short-lived responses to an infection. Other viral proteins that are immunogenic, such as the N (nucleocapsid) protein, may produce antibodies that can worsen symptoms.  The ZOE data gives previous infection as being 65% protective against reinfection, so not great, and there was that recent study showing it to be 90% protective against severe disease. This is in the same ballpark as the vaccines, but 2 vaccines plus booster is 90% protective against symptomatic disease.

The vaccinations produce a much more predictable response across the population

 

Well, It should be pretty obvious to anyone capable of critical thinking that 'vaccines' that don't prevent infection and transmission are going to be far more likely to kick out variants that are better at evading them.

However, for those who can't understand this,  here is a good explanation, from an expert, of how leaky vaccines produce selection pressure for variants that are better at evading the vaccines.

 

From about 33 mins in: https://rumble.com/vqa0ph-meeting-of-the-covid-19-giants-with-geert-vanden-bossche-and-robert-malone-.html

 

 

 

[Timm]

On 11/12/2021 at 18:17, gruffydd said:

Far better simply to follow the experts - I've included a few there for you - they are specialists with relevant academic backgrounds. 

I was simply referring to hopium - a term scientists are now using vis-a-vis people who suggest Omicron poses less of a threat (we simply don't know right now but there are some serious warning signs). 

Omicron appears to spread more rapidly - the severity may be no different to Delta - it is hard to tell yet. The transmissibility is the key concern... ie if this cuts through 20 million / 40 million people very quickly we have a problem. The government is beginning to see this. 

Might I add we don't even understand what "recovery" looks like... all these people spouting off that Covid only kills a tiny proportion of those infected... how about long-term neurological and other health damage in those who "recover"? 

The debate is just so binary - something good science never is... ie it's systemic, highly complex and nuanced. Sadly, many people are too ridiculous to understand. 

Check this study out... re: "recovery": 
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.778434/full?utm_source=fweb&utm_medium=nblog&utm_campaign=ba-sci-fmed-long-covid-mortality

Many of us who come from science backgrounds are incredibly frustrated with the lack of understanding of complexity right now. It really shows up our education system in the UK for what it is (a bit crap)... how about inserting Systems Engineering into weekly lessons. 

I was helping set up a new degree course last week and one comment I got back is how poor undergraduates are at critical analysis these days - another concern... a new dumbed down generation. No bloody wonder the world is such a mess right now. 

Thank you for replying.

There are some early early indications though.

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/no-omicron-deaths-jj-vaccine-study-south-africa-scientist-says-2021-12-14/

"CAPE TOWN, Dec 14 (Reuters) - No one has died from the Omicron coronavirus variant in a study of Johnson & Johnson's (JNJ.N) COVID-19 vaccine in South Africa, one of the co-lead investigators of the study said on Tuesday.

"Although we have had a lot of breakthrough infections there has been very little hospital admission in comparison to the Delta period. And as of today we have had no one who has died from Omicron from the J&J study, so that's the good news, it shows again that the vaccine is effective against severe disease and death," South African Medical Research Council president Glenda Gray told a news conference."

[Bruce Banner]

9 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

I do find this really odd though - because the point of the flu jab is to stop you getting flu symptoms AT ALL. 

Once you've actually HAD the flu the immunity only stops you getting the same strain again that winter.

I can understand why someone would rather have a mild case of Covid than three annual Covid jabs.   I can understand why someone would rather take their chances with flu than have a flu jab.

I do still find it harder to understand why someone would turn down jabs in order to get natural immunity, because once you've actually HAD the disease the risk event has happened!  The only value of immunity is stopping you getting disease.  But you've had to HAVE the disease to get it.  It's like saying you'll buy an umbrella - but only the day after it rains.  Sure you will be prevented from getting wet going forwards, but at the cost of definitely getting wet once.  It seems to make less sense than buying one now so you never get wet, or not buying one at all because you don't mind getting wet.

 

But it's not that effective...

Vaccine Effectiveness: How Well Do Flu Vaccines Work? | CDC

recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60%

 

[14stFlyer]

1 minute ago, henry the king said:

Both anti-vaxxers and zero-covid people have an element of truth/logic to what they say. I am not saying they don't. Just, in the big picture, I believe both to be completely wrong. 

Personally I don’t have any axe to grind with your position on this Henry. It is just your certainty that you are right and everyone else is wrong that worries.  Mind you, I think we all overstate our level of certainty in these threads. 
 

For example, saying that a GP working in one of the major hospitals in Gauteng  province is not an “expert” on the sickness level and health outcomes of her patients and so her information does not hold weight?  Well that seems a bit dodge to me too!

[henry the king]

1 minute ago, 14stFlyer said:

Personally I don’t have any axe to grind with your position on this Henry. It is just your certainty that you are right and everyone else is wrong that worries.  Mind you, I think we all overstate our level of certainty in these threads. 
 

For example, saying that a GP working in one of the major hospitals in Gauteng  province is not an “expert” on the sickness level and health outcomes of her patients and so her information does not hold weight?  Well that seems a bit dodge to me too!

I think most of us realise the situation is uncertain. In truth nobody really knows but people (including experts) are just guessing from available data. When that happens the experts will just default to their pre-existing views quite often. 

I agree though, the most important data is will South Africa need to lockdown or do restrictions. The fact they haven't so far (when they had to previously) is very positive news. 

[Bob8]

5 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

Well, It should be pretty obvious to anyone capable of critical thinking that 'vaccines' that don't prevent infection and transmission are going to be far more likely to kick out variants that are better at evading them.

However, for those who can't understand this,  here is a good explanation, from an expert, of how leaky vaccines produce selection pressure for variants that are better at evading the vaccines.

From about 33 mins in: https://rumble.com/vqa0ph-meeting-of-the-covid-19-giants-with-geert-vanden-bossche-and-robert-malone-.html

It is not explained, merely stated.

I can say, "Sorry, I cannot come tomorrow because there are pie shops in Wigan". It has the same sentance structure as an explination, but it is not one.

Were it antibiotics, I would agree. But this is not comparable.

The main issue we have is a largely naive population unexposed to the antigens. Exposing them to the antigens reduces this. @gruffydd, am I missing something?

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

9 minutes ago, henry the king said:

Both anti-vaxxers and zero-covid people have an element of truth/logic to what they say. I am not saying they don't. Just, in the big picture, I believe both to be completely wrong. 

I think you perhaps misunderstand zero covid - it isn't about enforcing an eternal lockdown... it's about exploring the possibility of eradication... and the strategies that would be required to achieve that, worldwide. Perhaps zero covid is not going to be possible, but we won't know without the required research and debate. 

Anti-vaxxers... well, that's another matter entirely

[Bruce Banner]

13 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

I quite understand that.

I would too, were it not for the danger of spreading the infection to other people.

I just do not see that we have such a choice.

Wanting to stay alive is natural, failing in that is very natural too.

But those other people should be protected from serious illness by their jabs, if they wish to have them.

[Bob8]

3 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

But those other people should be protected from serious illness by their jabs, if they wish to have them.

Yes, but again immunity is not absolute.

It is a balance and it is your decision.

What we would both ideally like is to be exposed to the pathogen in a way to get immunity, but without the risk of serious illness. That is essentially what vaccination is.

 

[Bob8]

7 minutes ago, gruffydd said:

I think you perhaps misunderstand zero covid - it isn't about enforcing an eternal lockdown... it's about exploring the possibility of eradication... and the strategies that would be required to achieve that, worldwide. Perhaps zero covid is not going to be possible, but we won't know without the required research and debate. 

Anti-vaxxers... well, that's another matter entirely

It does look impractical.

The problem with the debate is that "learning to live with it" has been warped to not mean that, but to instead mean "refusing to accept it or to learn to live with it and pretend it does not exist". This makes honest discussion harder.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

3 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

It is not explained, merely stated.

I can say, "Sorry, I cannot come tomorrow because there are pie shops in Wigan". It has the same sentance structure as an explination, but it is not one.

Were it antibiotics, I would agree. But this is not comparable.

The main issue we have is a largely naive population unexposed to the antigens. Exposing them to the antigens reduces this. @gruffydd, am I missing something?

There seems to be a hell of a lot of complexity here

(1) Do vaccines speed up mutation directly? I can't find any evidence... could there be a direct/indirect impact? Possibly. 

(2) By reducing transmission, vaccines have helped reduce the risk of mutation. This is simply a fact. 

Highly challenging to draw together the first point, and the second point and come to any kind of conclusion right now.