Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, horsefly 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.

Horsefly, I have said to you three times now that the comments you keep quoting were in direct response to the post I quoted, which stated lockdowns shouldn’t be lifted until there are fewer than 1000 infections a day.

If it helps you, I will change my initial comments to instead say Infection levels in and of themselves are irrelevant to when lockdown should be lifted. If community spread is high but the most vulnerable are already vaccinated and hospitalisations stay low as a result then why should we continue to have lockdown?”

Painful.

edit: and as for the rest of your post, I refer you back to my previous post. If you argue for lockdowns because something might mutate badly, then you’d never not have lockdowns. What if “normal flu” (lots of infections of that) mutates badly next year into something worse than covid? That’s life.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Aggy said:

edit: and as for the rest of your post, I refer you back to my previous post. If you argue for lockdowns because something might mutate badly, then you’d never not have lockdowns. What if “normal flu” (lots of infections of that) mutates badly next year into something worse than covid? That’s life.

Good lord! please point to me where I have argued for lockdowns. Nowhere is the answer, so please don't put words into my mouth that simply are not there. My point has only been about the need for effective infection control to prevent possible dangerous mutations that could threaten the efficacy of current vaccines. I was only ever responding to your claim that levels of infection were an irrelevance. In this respect I am merely repeating what Dr Fauci has argued. Not only have I not said anything about a need for extended or permanent lockdowns, I actually gave you examples of countries who have far more successfully dealt with the virus without lockdowns precisely because they exercised effective infection control procedures. If we had followed the example of those countries by developing genuinely effective infection control procedures (i.e. a working track and trace system and effective quarantine protocols) we might have avoided lockdowns too.

And by-the-way, your qualification doesn't help one bit. "If community spread remains high" then Fauci's point about the threat of a dangerous mutation remains untouched.

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Good lord! please point to me where I have argued for lockdowns. Nowhere is the answer, so please don't put words into my mouth that simply are not there. My point has only been about the need for effective infection control to prevent possible dangerous mutations that could threaten the efficacy of current vaccines. I was only ever responding to your claim that levels of infection were an irrelevance. In this respect I am merely repeating what Dr Fauci has argued. Not only have I not said anything about a need for extended or permanent lockdowns, I actually gave you examples of countries who have far more successfully dealt with the virus without lockdowns precisely because they exercised effective infection control procedures. If we had followed the example of those countries by developing genuinely effective infection control procedures (i.e. a working track and trace system and effective quarentine protocols) we might have avoided lockdowns too.

Fair enough. I assumed the reason you continued the discussion after I had said three times that my posts related specifically to VW’s post about lockdowns, was that you were arguing for the continuation of lockdowns on the basis of mutation risk. But yes I acknowledge you didn’t expressly say that.

If all you are saying to me is that more infections risk more mutations, but we shouldn’t have lockdowns on that basis alone, then yes, we agree and I have said the exact same thing a couple of times. Not sure why we’ve spent the morning clogging up the thread if thats the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Fair enough. I assumed the reason you continued the discussion after I had said three times that my posts related specifically to VW’s post about lockdowns, was that you were arguing for the continuation of lockdowns on the basis of mutation risk. But yes I acknowledge you didn’t expressly say that.

If all you are saying to me is that more infections risk more mutations, but we shouldn’t have lockdowns on that basis alone, then yes, we agree and I have said the exact same thing a couple of times. Not sure why we’ve spent the morning clogging up the thread if thats the case.

Indeed! Lockdowns are the very last resort, and the bad place you get to if you don't exercise effective infection control. That ought to be the chief lesson learned from the government's failures in this respect, and the successes in other parts of the world. The mass roll out of vaccines will play a huge part in helping to achieve eventual herd immunity but only if we ensure we don't allow a mutation to undo all their good work. Thus Fauci's points about the need to keep infection rates low is of the first importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Indeed! Lockdowns are the very last resort, and the bad place you get to if you don't exercise effective infection control. That ought to be the chief lesson learned from the government's failures in this respect, and the successes in other parts of the world. The mass roll out of vaccines will play a huge part in helping to achieve eventual herd immunity but only if we ensure we don't allow a mutation to undo all their good work. Thus Fauci's points about the need to keep infection rates low is of the first importance.

It’s a mixture of all sorts and every little helps so to speak.

I haven’t read all of the article, but presumably Fauci isn’t precluding the possibility of still getting a deadly mutation even if infections are low?

From the quotes you’ve used, he doesn’t appear to be saying that a higher number of infections means the mutation will definitely be nastier (in fact one of the quotes suggests a virus has more pressure to mutate nastily if there are fewer infections/more people vaccinated).

What he’s saying I think is that the more infections there are, there more occasions it will mutate. And if it mutates more often, there are more chances one of those times might be really nasty. But it could still be a really nasty mutation even if it only has a small number of chances to mutate. 
 

Is that your reading? (Presuming you have read more than me!)

So again it comes back to there needing to be a combination of things that will help. The fewer “occasions” it is allowed to mutate, the fewer times one of the mutations might turn out to be nasty. But it might still mutate nastily with fewer infections. And then you’re hoping you can get a workable vaccine and if not you’re having lockdowns to stop people from catching it in the first place.
 

But in reality you can’t one hundred per cent guarantee no nasty mutation however hard you try and then it comes back to the balance I think we all agree is needed between precautions and economy/normal life (even if we disagree on where that balance should be!)

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Aggy said:

I haven’t read all of the article, but presumably Fauci isn’t precluding the possibility of still getting a deadly mutation even if infections are low?

 Indeed! but his main claim is that it is vital to keep the levels of infection low in the community to reduce the risk of of a deadly mutation. Essentially the risk increases and decreases signficantly in correlation with the levels of community infection. So while even low levels of infection cannot preclude the development of a deadly mutation, it makes it far less likely. The further benefit of low community infection is also, of course, that any outbreaks can be switly and effectively resolved (the chief lesson we need to learn from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, New Zealand et al). I presume it is this sort of thinking that lies behind Hancock's mass testing of postcodes with cases of the variant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

So what are you two calling for?

 

If I’m one of the two - nothing really!

My point initially was that a focus on infection numbers for coming out of lockdown is the wrong way to look at it. It’s dependent on how many tests are done for starters and also means many just won’t get tested.

In terms of coming out of lockdown, I’d be calling for it to be based on hospitalisations. That’s been the point all along. Then we have some restrictions - limiting numbers who can meet up indoors etc. Much of what we’ve seen before really. And by the time we’re out it will also be spring / summer. 

So I expect we’ll be in lockdown until end of Feb/mid March then we’ll have something that resembles the tiers, we’ll then have a summer fairly similar to last summer and begin the vaccination process in time to ensure vulnerable are protected by next autumn/winter. That should then frankly stop the need for anything like a lockdown next winter. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, ricardo said:

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?

Sounds as though it may vary from one region to another, I'm talking about Yorkshire and I assume VW et al are in Norfolk or eastern England anyway.

As we've all known for years, things are grim up north 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aggy said:

If I’m one of the two - nothing really!

My point initially was that a focus on infection numbers for coming out of lockdown is the wrong way to look at it. It’s dependent on how many tests are done for starters and also means many just won’t get tested.

In terms of coming out of lockdown, I’d be calling for it to be based on hospitalisations. That’s been the point all along. Then we have some restrictions - limiting numbers who can meet up indoors etc. Much of what we’ve seen before really. And by the time we’re out it will also be spring / summer. 

So I expect we’ll be in lockdown until end of Feb/mid March then we’ll have something that resembles the tiers, we’ll then have a summer fairly similar to last summer and begin the vaccination process in time to ensure vulnerable are protected by next autumn/winter. That should then frankly stop the need for anything like a lockdown next winter. 

Id probably agree with that. 

I dont think horsey is wrong about mutations, the more infection the more risk, but we can live life in hiding and in constant fear of a worst case scenario. Sure we remain  vigilent and we act where and when needed but one way or  other we must return to normal a new and unobtrusive normal.

Hospitalisation and mutation are driven by the same thing- the body not being able to mount an effective campaign.  If you solve the first problem the second is massively reduced.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read this article.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/06/when-can-britain-reopen-this-spring-summer-and-autumns-covid-calendar

Makes a lot of the points I've been trying to make in the last few days especially relaxing the current lock down too early with high prevalence and most unvaccinated.

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Just read this article.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/06/when-can-britain-reopen-this-spring-summer-and-autumns-covid-calendar

Makes a lot of the points I've been trying to make in the last few days especially relaxing the current lock down too early with high prevalence and most unvaccinated.

I think that certain media sources have acted irresponsibly this week, there should be no talk of easing lockdown for some weeks yet.

Edited by Daz Sparks
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Daz Sparks said:

I think that certain media sources have acted irresponsibly this week, there should no talk of easing lockdown for some weeks yet.

Spot on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are reports emerging that the Oxford vaccine is far less effective against The South African variant. I should stress this is not from Jenner or AstraZeneca who at this moment are not commenting, so a possibility this is not right. The same report seems to think it still has some protection against severe COVID.

As I understand it this is from the SouthAfrica trial data, if indeed it is proven correct. Sarah Gilbert is on Andrew Marr tomorrow so maybe more then.

I should stress even if this is true it has not been peer reviewed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Well b back said:

There are reports emerging that the Oxford vaccine is far less effective against The South African variant. I should stress this is not from Jenner or AstraZeneca who at this moment are not commenting, so a possibility this is not right. The same report seems to think it still has some protection against severe COVID.

As I understand it this is from the SouthAfrica trial data, if indeed it is proven correct. Sarah Gilbert is on Andrew Marr tomorrow so maybe more then.

I should stress even if this is true it has not been peer reviewed.

The report in the FT suggests limited protection against mild or moderate disease but non of the vaccinated people in the trial required hospitalisation, quite a small survey I believe 2000? As you say, watch Andrew Marr tomorrow. 

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Van wink said:

The report in the FT suggests limited protection against mild or moderate disease but non of the vaccinated people in the trial required hospitalisation, quite a small survey I believe 2000? As you say, watch Andrew Marr tomorrow. 

I can tell you this is The South African trial and yes 1,000 with jab, 1,000 placebo. This was a trial that did not really involve older age groups, average age if I remember was 31. 
As far as I can see this has nothing to do with the lab test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Had the AZ today at a mass site. I bet I was in there between 3-4 minutes. Perfectly organised and everyone pleasant and well trained.

Good news KG, both that you had it and it was plain sailing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Had the AZ today at a mass site. I bet I was in there between 3-4 minutes. Perfectly organised and everyone pleasant and well trained.

We should have a pink un poster jab club badge lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Well b back said:

We should have a pink un poster jab club badge lol

I made sure I thanked them all personally to volunteer their services in a drafty old marquee just to protect me. Shows that people can rise above all the tensions in the world to do good.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National

15845 - 373

Local

image.png.71da90fd9e81f51d292eb7b2b6c93b5f.png

image.png.04ff879078c137a1c139d3ec8f4b7ab7.png

image.thumb.png.005fd3ca23e6ccfd1681f849941a157f.png

Another massive vax day

Should be done with groups 1-4 this week.

Edited by ricardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Herman said:

Excellent interview, the facts unlike mad moys s*** version. Excellent with our Sarah this morning as well, the facts rather than people just saying what they think people want to hear.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

Had the AZ today at a mass site. I bet I was in there between 3-4 minutes. Perfectly organised and everyone pleasant and well trained.

Did you go in your Emanuel Macron disguise?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Had the AZ today at a mass site. I bet I was in there between 3-4 minutes. Perfectly organised and everyone pleasant and well trained.

Wouldn't have got that jab if we were still in your beloved EU 😉

Any other hypocritical Remainiacs on here had their jabs yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...