Corona Virus main thread

[Well b back 3,203]

1 minute ago, ricardo said:

I actually asked about making a second appointment and was told no, the NHS will be in touch. Mrs R had hers at the local surgery a week later and again nothing said about second appointment. I have emailed my doctors in the hope of clarification.

Maybe it’s because you were at a hub and they have constant streams I wouldn’t worry to much, but if you get to 8 weeks and no appointment then I would start troubling them.

[ricardo 7,395]

National

19114 - 1014

Positives down 27% Deaths down 18% on the week.

Local

Well on target to meet expected totals. Weather the only possible fly in the ointment.

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

39 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Maybe it’s because you were at a hub and they have constant streams I wouldn’t worry to much, but if you get to 8 weeks and no appointment then I would start troubling them.

From what I'm hearing no one is getting second appointment at the mo - my Mum, wife and both daughters (NHS front line) have had their first jab within the last 2-3 weeks and all have been told they will be contacted when a second one is available, probably in 12 weeks time. Same story from several friends as well so seems to be standard, at least in this area.

[Well b back 3,203]

6 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

From what I'm hearing no one is getting second appointment at the mo - my Mum, wife and both daughters (NHS front line) have had their first jab within the last 2-3 weeks and all have been told they will be contacted when a second one is available, probably in 12 weeks time. Same story from several friends as well so seems to be standard, at least in this area.

Fair play either way, I have no idea the best way, but with the good news that supply is now making major jumps around the world, it will be far less an issue in a couple of weeks.

[ricardo 7,395]

12 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

From what I'm hearing no one is getting second appointment at the mo - my Mum, wife and both daughters (NHS front line) have had their first jab within the last 2-3 weeks and all have been told they will be contacted when a second one is available, probably in 12 weeks time. Same story from several friends as well so seems to be standard, at least in this area.

Meanwhile if you read back a few posts you will see several posters ( VW, Canary King, We'll b Back, Barry Brockes etc) who have second appointments booked. So what is the situation?

Edited February 5, 2021 by ricardo

[ricardo 7,395]

Very encouraging data from Israel.

[Barry Brockes 147]

Yep, for me it's Castle Quarter in Norwich (formerly Castle Mall for any exiles) at 9.05 on Wednesday 28th April.

[sonyc 5,517]

2 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Very encouraging data from Israel.

For the over 60s yes. Not so much under 60. I posted earlier on some of the non compliance problems Israel is contending with, with continuing high rates of infection driven by younger people (who are also more vaccine-suspicious). On the plus side it shows the vaccines appear to be highly effective.

 

[Well b back 3,203]

Just now, sonyc said:

For the over 60s yes. Not so much under 60. I posted earlier on some of the non compliance problems Israel is contending with, with continuing high rates of infection driven by younger people (who are also more vaccine-suspicious). On the plus side it shows the vaccines appear to be highly effective.

 

99.66% effective 2 weeks after 2nd dose. 

[Well b back 3,203]

10 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Very encouraging data from Israel.

Indeed

As you are aware I follow this closely as well. I think just worth throwing in again these figures are based on 2nd dose at 21 days for Pfizer and people like me and you with just the one dose need to remain careful.

As @sonyc says as well the next set of data ( based on leaks ) shows apparently a lot of people below 50 refusing the jab, which is slightly worrying.

[Well b back 3,203]

Some very good and slightly not quite as good news ( although that could change ) from Oxford. 
 

The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine gives people good protection against the new coronavirus variant which is now dominant in the UK, its developers say.

They found similar efficacy against the B117 "Kent" variant to the original virus, based on swabs from volunteers.

It is still unclear how well the jab works against other variants with more worrying mutations.

But the Oxford team says it can easily update its vaccine and deploy a new version in the autumn if needed.

[Van wink 2,994]

20 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Indeed

As you are aware I follow this closely as well. I think just worth throwing in again these figures are based on 2nd dose at 21 days for Pfizer and people like me and you with just the one dose need to remain careful.

As @sonyc says as well the next set of data ( based on leaks ) shows apparently a lot of people below 50 refusing the jab, which is slightly worrying.

@ricardo  remain careful as WBB says Ricardo but the UEA study did indicate you will be reasonably well protected after 21 days on one dose. After the 2nd you will be flying up Gas Hill on your bicyclette 😉

https://www.uea.ac.uk/news/-/article/single-pfizer-shot-90-per-cent-effective-after-21-days

[ricardo 7,395]

26 minutes ago, Van wink said:

@ricardo  remain careful as WBB says Ricardo but the UEA study did indicate you will be reasonably well protected after 21 days on one dose. After the 2nd you will be flying up Gas Hill on your bicyclette 😉

 

Nearly sixty years have gone by since I last did that.🚴‍♀️

Where did all that time go🤔

[Van wink 2,994]

21 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Nearly sixty years have gone by since I last did that.🚴‍♀️

Where did all that time go🤔

The electric ones are supposed to be pretty good these days😉

[horsefly 4,300]

8 hours ago, Aggy said:

Infection levels in and of themselves are irrelevant. If community spread is high but the most vulnerable are already vaccinated and hospitalisations stay low as a result then so what? Again getting back to remembering the end game here isn’t stopping anyone ever dying from a natural virus but instead ensuring hospitals aren’t overwhelmed.

Taking this view would be a huge mistake. The virus has already shown an alarming ability to mutate rapidly into potentially more virulent forms, which may in turn  render useless the vaccines that have been administered. However, virus mutations depend fundamentally on high levels of infection to make such mutations possible or likely. In short if you minimise infections you minimise the chances of it mutating into a form that renders the current vaccines useless. There is a reason why we have South African, Brazilian and UK variants and not a New Zealand one. Reducing infections therefore remains a crucial part of the strategy.

Edited February 5, 2021 by horsefly

[Van wink 2,994]

11 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Taking this view would be a huge mistake. The virus has already shown an alarming ability to mutate rapidly into potentially more virulent forms, which may in turn  render useless the vaccines that have been administered. However, virus mutations depend fundamentally on high levels of infection to make such mutations possible or likely. In short if you minimise infections you minimise the chances of it mutating into a form that renders the current vaccines useless. There is a reason why we have South African, Brazilian and UK variants and not a New Zealand one. Reducing infections therefore remains a crucial part of the strategy.

Most of that is correct Horsey, but the need to reduce community spread to a very low level has many facets, the need to reduce the opportunity for mutation being only one.

[Aggy 755]

43 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Taking this view would be a huge mistake. The virus has already shown an alarming ability to mutate rapidly into potentially more virulent forms, which may in turn  render useless the vaccines that have been administered. However, virus mutations depend fundamentally on high levels of infection to make such mutations possible or likely. In short if you minimise infections you minimise the chances of it mutating into a form that renders the current vaccines useless. There is a reason why we have South African, Brazilian and UK variants and not a New Zealand one. Reducing infections therefore remains a crucial part of the strategy.

As soon as you stop lockdown the number of infections are  going to start going back up again. So unless you have a permanent lockdown for ever, mutation is always going to be a risk. And the vaccine doesn’t give you permanent immunity (or permanently stop you from being able to spread it) so you’re always going to have chances for it to grow and spread.

You’re also assuming every mutation is a bad thing. Lots of viruses mutate to become more infectious but less deadly. 

If hospitalisations are low, you can’t forcibly keep people out of work and shut businesses because something might (or might not) mutate and that mutation might (or might not) become more deadly. You’d never leave the house ever again.

 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Aggy

[Aggy 755]

Also, I’m not sure who is alarmed at the rate covid is mutating, as most places seem to suggest it mutates slower than most viruses. Article from 3 days ago....

https://www.scotsman.com/health/coronavirus/how-does-virus-mutate-why-do-mutations-happen-south-african-uk-and-brazil-covid-variants-continue-spread-3076550

”

All viruses naturally mutate as they spread through a population, and this coronavirus Sars-CoV-2 has undergone one or two changes a month since the start of the pandemic.

 

 

 

In fact, it has changed at a slow pace compared to other viruses, like seasonal flu, which mutates at a fast rate so that a new vaccine has to be introduced every year.

It is an RNA virus, like the flu and measles, and these types of viruses are more prone to mutations than DNA viruses, such as herpes and smallpox.

Mutations usually happen by chance, and don’t have much impact on the properties of a virus - the World Health Organisation (WHO) said these changes are “natural and expected”.

Often, they can lead to a weaker version of the virus, or the changes could be so small that there’s no difference in its behaviour.”

[horsefly 4,300]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

As soon as you stop lockdown the number of infections are  going to start going back up again. So unless you have a permanent lockdown for ever, mutation is always going to be a risk. And the vaccine doesn’t give you permanent immunity (or permanently stop you from being able to spread it) so you’re always going to have chances for it to grow and spread.

You’re also assuming every mutation is a bad thing. Lots of viruses mutate to become more infectious but less deadly. 

If hospitalisations are low, you can’t forcibly keep people out of work and shut businesses because something might (or might not) mutate and that mutation might (or might not) become more deadly. You’d never leave the house ever again.

 

You said: Infection levels in and of themselves are irrelevant. If community spread is high but the most vulnerable are already vaccinated and hospitalisations stay low as a result then so what? 

Infection levels very clearly are not irrelevant. It's a simple scientific fact that high levels of infection gaurantees a higher probability of dangerous mutations. To say "so what" is utterly reckless.

And I'm afraid it's ridiculous to argue that "I'm assuming every mutation is a bad thing". I'm assuming nothing of the sort. The point is to reduce the probability of a dangerous mutation developing that wipes out the effectiveness of the vaccines. The only way to keep this probability low is to keep the infection rate low. How stupid would it be to do all the good work of mass vaccination but risk the effectiveness of that by allowing the virus infection rate to run rampant and risk it mutating freely into more dangerous forms. 

You ignore the lessons we should be learning from the way some Asian countries have dealt with the virus. For example, South Korea never even had a national lockdown precisely because they  vigorously controlled the spread of the infection whenever an outbreak occurred. A similar story can be said of Japan which also had no national lockdown, and also vigorously acted to prevent the spread of the infection whenever an outbreak occurred. Fundamental to the excellent record of both of the countries I have just mentioned is infection control. So it's utterly ridiculous to suggest that the "only" way to prevent a dangerous mutation happening is to be in "permanent lockdown".

To ignore infection control in the way you suggest is the most likely way to ensure that we would need to re-enter a future lockdown. This ought to be obvious from the threats posed by covid variants that have developed in countries that failed to sufficiently control infection spread.

[Aggy 755]

7 hours ago, horsefly said:

You said: Infection levels in and of themselves are irrelevant. If community spread is high but the most vulnerable are already vaccinated and hospitalisations stay low as a result then so what? 

 

I did say that. Directly in response to VW’s post (which I quoted) that said lockdowns should be reduced only when the number of infections are low. 

You’re now talking about general infection control.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting we stop washing our hands and begin licking random strangers in the street.

But that can be applied to any virus. Influenza mutates quicker than covid, means we have to use different vaccines every year and tens of  thousands die even with vaccines. Anything might mutate dangerously.

But in the same way that we don’t have lockdowns and strict social distancing rules to lower the risk of influenza (or anything else) mutating dangerously, we won’t have them to reduce the risk of covid mutating dangerously. 

Edited February 6, 2021 by Aggy

[horsefly 4,300]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

But in the same way that we don’t have lockdowns and strict social distancing rules to lower the risk of influenza (or anything else) mutating dangerously, we won’t have them to reduce the risk of covid mutating dangerously. 

Really? Perhaps you had better let Hancock know that because that is precisely what he claims to have been doing with the door-to-door testing in postcodes where there variants have broken out. Or are you suggesting that this has nothing to do with infection control?

And why do you think the government spends millions each year on vaccinations against influenza? It is precisely to stop people dying of it and to prevent the infection spreading widely. Perhaps you should take a look at the literature available on "Exercise Cygnus" (2016) which was premised on the outbreak of a novel influenza pandemic. 

Edited February 6, 2021 by horsefly

[Aggy 755]

6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Really? Perhaps you had better let Hancock know that because that is precisely what he claims to have been doing with the door-to-door testing in postcodes where there variants have broken out. Or are you suggesting that this has nothing to do with infection control?

What’s your fascination with infection control? Where have I said there shouldn’t  be infection control? 

As far as I’m aware, hospitals are still extremely busy, we’ve still got hundreds of deaths a day, we haven’t got all the vulnerable vaccinated fully and therefore yes obviously we are interested in controlling infections, to reduce hospitalisations and deaths. 

When hospitalisations are significantly down, deaths are low, and we’ve got vulnerable people vaccinated, we’re not suddenly going to go into another national lockdown because infection rates are high but nobody has anything more than a cough with it.
 

Nor will we continue with lockdowns and strict social distancing to reduce the risk of a virus possibly mutating dangerously.

edit: ps isn’t Hancock just trying to stop new variants spreading more widely? How does that tie in with reducing the risk of further mutations?

Edited February 6, 2021 by Aggy

[horsefly 4,300]

7 minutes ago, Aggy said:

What’s your fascination with infection control? Where have I said there shouldn’t  be infection control? 

These are your very words:

"Infection levels in and of themselves are irrelevant. If community spread is high but the most vulnerable are already vaccinated and hospitalisations stay low as a result then so what?"

And my fascination with infection control is precisely because all those countries that have proved very successful in handling the virus have been so precisely because they prioritised extensive infection control. As a result many of them didn't require to go into a national lockdown. I find it suprising that you wouldn't want to learn from their example.

[horsefly 4,300]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

When hospitalisations are significantly down, deaths are low, and we’ve got vulnerable people vaccinated, we’re not suddenly going to go into another national lockdown because infection rates are high but nobody has anything more than a cough with it.

 

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

ps isn’t Hancock just trying to stop new variants spreading more widely? How does that tie in with reducing the risk of further mutations?

 

And here's what Dr Fauci warns about the problem of  allowing high infection levels:

It is totally expected for a virus to mutate, and usually there is "no functional relevance at all," Fauci explained. "They don't change anything functionally about the virus, but every once in a while, if the virus replicates enough, namely, when there's a lot of infection in the community and in the world, you get mutations that do impact the viruses function. For example, could make it more transmissible, could have an effect on making it more dangerous in the sense of causing more serious illness, but importantly, it could ultimately evade or avoid the protective effect of both monoclonal antibodies and the antibodies that are induced by a vaccine." 

"When you try to contain a virus, either with a drug or a vaccine, it gets pressure to mutate, and the more pressure you put on it, the more it mutates," he explained. "As I've said many, many times, and I would like to say it again so people could understand it, the best way to prevent the evolution of mutations is to suppress the replication of the virus in the community"  https://ca.style.yahoo.com/dr-fauci-says-best-way-220107240.html

I'm with Fauci on this and not you. I can't see how it can be made any clearer that infection control is intimately related to preventing dangerous mutations.

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by horsefly

[Aggy 755]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

These are your very words:

"Infection levels in and of themselves are irrelevant. If community spread is high but the most vulnerable are already vaccinated and hospitalisations stay low as a result then so what?"

And my fascination with infection control is precisely because all those countries that have proved very successful in handling the virus have been so precisely because they prioritised extensive infection control. As a result many of them didn't require to go into a national lockdown. I find it suprising that you wouldn't want to learn from their example.

I have  already said that was in direct response to a post (which was quoted) suggesting we shouldn’t stop lockdown until we have fewer than 1,000 infections a day.

All those countries you refer to didn’t have vaccines, so they needed to prioritise extensive infection control.

I agree infection control is important but only to the extent it impacts hospitalisation. 

We have huge numbers of flu infections, common cold, various other things every single year. They don’t cause hospitals to be overwhelmed . But let’s remember flu can kill tens of thousands even with vaccines. Before flu jabs, in the lifetime of many posters on here, 80,000+ people died in single flu seasons not all that uncommonly. It’s highly dangerous, yet we live with high levels of infections because jabs help us keep hospitalisations down. So infections per se aren’t the issue.

Of course, without vaccines, reducing the number of infections was the only way we could keep hospitalisations down. But with vaccines, we can live with a higher level of infections and still not have hospitals being overwhelmed.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Aggy

[Aggy 755]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

 

 

And here's what Dr Fauci warns about the problem of  allowing high infection levels:

It is totally expected for a virus to mutate, and usually there is "no functional relevance at all," Fauci explained. "They don't change anything functionally about the virus, but every once in a while, if the virus replicates enough, namely, when there's a lot of infection in the community and in the world, you get mutations that do impact the viruses function. For example, could make it more transmissible, could have an effect on making it more dangerous in the sense of causing more serious illness, but importantly, it could ultimately evade or avoid the protective effect of both monoclonal antibodies and the antibodies that are induced by a vaccine."  https://ca.style.yahoo.com/dr-fauci-says-best-way-220107240.html

I'm with Fauci on this and not you. I can't see how it can be made any clearer that infection control is intimately related to preventing dangerous mutations.

 

Pretty sure the link I posted yesterday said this didn’t it? High infections = high mutations. Some might mutate and become worse, some might mutate and become more infectious but less deadly. Happens all the time.

That’s why we have to change flu jabs every year and when we dont get the right jab, tens of thousands die.

That’s never going to change. There will always be a chance some virus might mutate into something horrible.
 

If you argue for lockdowns and strict social distancing on the basis a virus might mutate badly then you would never not have lockdown and strict social distancing.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Aggy

[horsefly 4,300]

2 minutes ago, Aggy said:

All those countries you refer to didn’t have vaccines, so they needed to prioritise extensive infection control.

I agree infection control is important but only to the extent it impacts hospitalisation. 

I'm referring to your comment that: "Infection levels in and of themselves are irrelevant. If community spread is high but the most vulnerable are already vaccinated and hospitalisations stay low as a result then so what?"

I suggest you read Fauci's article to see why this is dangerously false. 

[Aggy 755]

19 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I'm referring to your comment that: "Infection levels in and of themselves are irrelevant. If community spread is high but the most vulnerable are already vaccinated and hospitalisations stay low as a result then so what?"

I suggest you read Fauci's article to see why this is dangerously false. 

 

23 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Pretty sure the link I posted yesterday said this didn’t it? High infections = high mutations. Some might mutate and become worse, some might mutate and become more infectious but less deadly. Happens all the time.

That’s why we have to change flu jabs every year and when we dont get the right jab, tens of thousands die.

That’s never going to change. There will always be a chance some virus might mutate into something horrible.
 

If you argue for lockdowns and strict social distancing on the basis a virus might mutate badly then you would never not have lockdown and strict social distancing.

 

[Barbe bleu 826]

Why are we asserting that japans relative success is due to it exercising the highest of infection control standards as if this has been established beyond doubt?

Do we really know what had driven the low numbers? 

[horsefly 4,300]

2 minutes ago, Aggy said:

 

 

I'm amazed that you can't see how your claim that:  "Infection levels in and of themselves are irrelevant. If community spread is high but the most vulnerable are already vaccinated and hospitalisations stay low as a result then so what?" is in complete conflict with Fauci's warning that: "When you try to contain a virus, either with a drug or a vaccine, it gets pressure to mutate, and the more pressure you put on it, the more it mutates. As I've said many, many times, and I would like to say it again so people could understand it, the best way to prevent the evolution of mutations is to suppress the replication of the virus in the community"

The triumph of vaccines is that they prevent infections. But as Fauci is at pains to point out, if infection levels are high in the community then you run the real risk of dangerous mutations developing that destroy the immunity that vaccines have created. Thus your claim that "infection levels in and of themselves are irrelevant" is in flat contradiction to Fauci's warnings. I really don't understand why you want to persist in claiming this. But as it is beyond me to make this point any clearer than Fauci makes it himself, I shall conclude here with the hope that we don't find this point tested out in actual reality. I pray that mass vaccination reaches a point of herd immunity such that infection levels are low enough in the community to mitigate against the threat of an outbreak of a dangerous mutation.