Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Indy said:

Ativaxers are allowed to say no, then they should be charged in full for any treatment required. As a free society we still have means to pressure them to do the right thing or at least give them consequences for refusing.

Hmm again though, if you’re going to say that, why should smokers not have to pay for lung cancer treatment? They could have said no to smoking. Same with diseases related to alcohol, obesity etc. 
edit : posted before reading the rest of the thread!

Edited by Aggy
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Germany tops 70k tonight.

 

I do feel a bit sorry for Germany given how well they navigated the pre vaccine 2020 era whilst surrounded by chaos here in UK and most of the rest of Europe.

Every country seems to find its own little way of screwing up something different to each other. In Germanys case, it's antivaxx seniors.

I can't help but think that all that screwing around with approvals of vaccines in funny cohorts and orders and the nonsense with the AZ vaccine put some vulnerable people off getting vaccinated whilst the likes of Portugal and even us in UK put our politics aside and united in a vaccination effort (at least the older folk anyway).

I think back to that story in the papers of that woman who's husband had just died from vaccine side effects still imploring people to go get jabbed and even the sh*t rags like the s*n and daily mail encouraging it. Thank god they did really or we'd probably be in the same boat as them! Hopefully if we have to have a culture war we keep it to whether or not to wear masks down the shops and it doesn't spill over to vaccines.

Share this post


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

Hmm again though, if you’re going to say that, why should smokers not have to pay for lung cancer treatment? They could have said no to smoking. Same with diseases related to alcohol, obesity etc. 
edit : posted before reading the rest of the thread!

I guess we can at least heavily tax those goods which should at least in theory offset the additional cost to public health. How do you tax an anti-vaxxer?

Share this post


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

Hmm again though, if you’re going to say that, why should smokers not have to pay for lung cancer treatment? They could have said no to smoking. Same with diseases related to alcohol, obesity etc. 
edit : posted before reading the rest of the thread!

Aren’t you heavily taxed ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tetteys Jig said:

yup, I've always thought that surely there's something in the middle and that we don't have to go full USA on healthcare. Unfortunately the greedy insurance companies etc have tainted their system when in theory, it could work. Same sort of argument that communism and capitalism both work in theory but people just get greedy and spoil it in reality.

In your example though, say this obese person has no money to pay or won't pay, what do we actually do with them? leave them to die in their own fat at home? force them to have treatment? force them to pay/pass their financial burden onto their family?

Like I said free treatment initially and for any condition a program to keep to to ensure best opportunity to fully recover. If they fail to keep to the recovery program then tough, pay for the treatment. There’s huge burden on the NHS from conditions which could like you say be avoided if those who can take better care of themselves in many ways. But it’s not the norm to take ownership of anything is it, as Covid measures shows! Simple task of wearing a face covering in crowded areas or social distance and hygiene questionable again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Significant !8% weekly increase on Zoe, mainly in younger people, school kids and their parents. Old fogies figures dropping slightly, good news. (my figure dropped a long time ago).

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Significant !8% weekly increase on Zoe, mainly in younger people, school kids and their parents. Old fogies figures dropping slightly, good news. (my figure dropped a long time ago).

Snap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Aggy said:

Hmm again though, if you’re going to say that, why should smokers not have to pay for lung cancer treatment? They could have said no to smoking. Same with diseases related to alcohol, obesity etc. 
edit : posted before reading the rest of the thread!

The costs of treating smoking related diseases are more than covered by duty on cigarettes and similar is true for alcohol. Arguably, it'd be a better approach to do this for all illegal drugs, but that's another subject.

Vaccines are different: The vaccines cost government money to purchase and deliver, but represents a massive saving overall in the reductions of costs to the health service in treating more severe cases, as well as reduced economic disruption from less people becoming severely ill/dying. 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B.1.1.529 variant has 32 mutations in the spike protein and evades vaccines.
We need to keep this little bug*** out, after only 10 known cases in Africa is already known as variant of significant concern.

Edited by Well b back
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The B.1.1.529 variant has 32 mutations in the spike protein and evades vaccines.
We need to keep this little bug*** out, after only 10 known cases in Africa is already known as variant of significant concern.

Don't worry about it, I think the key thing to remember is that any variant which has sufficiently diluted binding efficiency to antibodies will also have extremely diluted binding efficiency to the ACE-2 receptor making it much less effective.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Don't worry about it, I think the key thing to remember is that any variant which has sufficiently diluted binding efficiency to antibodies will also have extremely diluted binding efficiency to the ACE-2 receptor making it much less effective.

Its all about a competitive advantage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National

47,240 -  147

rate of increase of 9.5%        

 

Local

Norwich   West rate             242.3           

 

     

N&N Patients

   
 
23-11-2021             28
22-11-2021 27
21-11-2021 25
20-11-2021 24
   

Vax     

1st Dose      24,579              88.4% done                               Norwich numbers   77.4% 

2nd Dose     23,439              80.4% done                                                                  70.5%


Booster     378,946     total          15,639,477                 28.5%

In Hospital  

24-11-2021                                       7,641
23-11-2021 7,893
22-11-2021 8,114
21-11-2021 8,021
20-11-2021 7,927
19-11-2021 8,053
18-11-2021 8,105

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Well b back said:

Aren’t you heavily taxed ? 

I don’t smoke or drink so I wouldn’t know. 

How about obese people? Or people who break their legs doing activities - could have chosen to stay home instead. 

And while everyone ignored the chart I posted up last week (I can only guess why), covid cases were a very small proportion of people in hospital beds. So regardless of how much you tax cigarettes and alcohol does it really “pay” for the fact there aren’t enough beds for other people to get treatment?

Picking and choosing what gets free treatment is a slippery slope. Fine when it’s anti vaxxers, but don’t whinge when it’s something closer to home… We saw on here how certain posters mocked 20 year olds for whinging about ‘civil liberties’ but literally called potential restrictions for over 50s “undemocratic”…

Share this post


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

I don’t smoke or drink so I wouldn’t know. 

How about obese people? Or people who break their legs doing activities - could have chosen to stay home instead. 

And while everyone ignored the chart I posted up last week (I can only guess why), covid cases were a very small proportion of people in hospital beds. So regardless of how much you tax cigarettes and alcohol does it really “pay” for the fact there aren’t enough beds for other people to get treatment?

Picking and choosing what gets free treatment is a slippery slope. Fine when it’s anti vaxxers, but don’t whinge when it’s something closer to home… We saw on here how certain posters mocked 20 year olds for whinging about ‘civil liberties’ but literally called potential restrictions for over 50s “undemocratic”…

Well, I do happen to agree with the main thrust of your argument over the months - concerning alcohol, obesity, smoking. I haven't been to A&E many times (accompanying others only thankfully when I have) but I think it is fair to say that every time I have done, there has always been not one, but many folk there p*ssed out of their heads and clearly drunk. Type 2 diabetes is also a big problem, so much so that it leads to many other issues. Smoking is an obvious problem too. All these things put Covid into perspective. 

We arguably need far harder and stronger measures to either encourage or perhaps coerce people to improve their well being. Also I would target mental health services (but then having worked in the industry for 25 years I would say that of course!). I cannot see this present administration doing that (even the attempt by some lobbyists to tax sugar has largely failed). The media would also start to cry "nanny state". 

The other big issue is that now that the health bill has got past it's first stage, we look like facilitating more US influence into our health services and systems. Some would welcome this of course as not everyone supports the idea of the NHS (seen as far too 'socialist' - which in a way it is). Yet, you can see that a move towards more private health insurance would also mean more profiling and an examination of health records and health indicators. The move towards greater digitalisation will lead to more surveillance of our personal habits and behaviours (including what we buy, what we consume -  this kind of world is definitely coming) and costs of insurance will rise for those seen as least healthy. Maybe this is what is needed to lead to change Aggy? I'm sure it is not my solution but this is the way we are heading isn't it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's certainly an interesting one... say we all had to pay medical insurance and the premium was doubled if you weren't vaccinated. Would probably point a few to go get jabbed, especially those that don't have lots of money. Quite a worrying way for things to go which leaves things open to exploitation really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tetteys Jig said:

it's certainly an interesting one... say we all had to pay medical insurance and the premium was doubled if you weren't vaccinated. Would probably point a few to go get jabbed, especially those that don't have lots of money. Quite a worrying way for things to go which leaves things open to exploitation really.

But there will be varying degrees of treatment even for antivaxers should they catch it. Its just not worth getting annoyed about those who will not have the jab even though I have not heard one reasonable argument not to.

Share this post


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

But there will be varying degrees of treatment even for antivaxers should they catch it. Its just not worth getting annoyed about those who will not have the jab even though I have not heard one reasonable argument not to.

it isn't worth it for me currently but I'd be really miffed if I was in Austria or Germany right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the new mutation is out so we’ll see just how good the vaccine is against this one…..in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ricardo said:

Don't worry about it, I think the key thing to remember is that any variant which has sufficiently diluted binding efficiency to antibodies will also have extremely diluted binding efficiency to the ACE-2 receptor making it much less effective.

Peppa pig panics quickly though as we start to close borders with Africa. But as usual we are going to let plenty of flights in first.

Although not many cases identified yet it is thought a possibility that in 4 weeks in one area of South Africa it accounts for 90% all cases.

Lets hope you are correct and we don’t suffer for not helping these countries with vaccines.

I don’t worry about these things anymore, however it took 4 months for the world to worry about Alpha, 3 1/2 months to worry about Delta and 2 weeks for the world to panic about this variant.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s just hope it don’t get out of Africa, like Ebola which didn’t get far.

Throwing people in their domestic prisons, confined to Pasta, loo rolls and Netflix, just delays the obvious, it don’t “surpress” or stop it completely at all.

Edited by KernowCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KernowCanary said:

Let’s just hope it don’t get out of Africa, like Ebola which didn’t get far.

Throwing people in their domestic prisons, confined to Pasta, loo rolls and Netflix, just delays the obvious, it don’t “surpress” or stop it completely at all.

It’s already out of Africa (as they say)!

Lock down plays an important roll in protecting health services, particularly when community immunity is low whether by an absent vaccine or equally an ineffective vaccine. 

Share this post


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

It’s already out of Africa (as they say)!

Lock down plays an important roll in protecting health services, particularly when community immunity is low whether by an absent vaccine or equally an ineffective vaccine. 

Only Hong Kong, but I don’t think we have that much of a relationship with them like we do with India and that played a part in Delta getting over here; Boris kept sucking up to Modi allowing diplomatic arranged flights into the country from there.

Lockdowns do prevent health systems being overwhelmed etc, but it’s that they have a huge effect on mental health, only pause the obvious until they are eased and when they last until further notice, then that’s when they have a huge mental effect. The November one last year was just for the month and nobody complained about that one really, as we were told in advance it’s duration.

I’m only for lockdown again if it means adopting the Austrian model, allowing freedoms for the vaccinated. This works better and encourages the anti-vaxxers who are the problem’s nub, to actually do something useful to themselves and others in their somewhat sad conspiracy-filled lives.

If they still refuse, since there are twisted individuals who actually enjoy lockdowns, make it a legal requirement.

To think that second lockdown was still going on a year ago and was about to end the following week. Times gone quick.

Edited by KernowCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KernowCanary said:

Only Hong Kong, but I don’t think we have that much of a relationship with them like we do with India and that played a part in Delta getting over here; Boris kept sucking up to Modi allowing diplomatic arranged flights into the country from there.

Lockdowns do prevent health systems being overwhelmed etc, but it’s that they have a huge effect on mental health, only pause the obvious until they are eased and when they last until further notice, then that’s when they have a huge mental effect. The November one last year was just for the month and nobody complained about that one really, as we were told in advance it’s duration.

I’m only for lockdown again if it means adopting the Austrian model, allowing freedoms for the vaccinated. This works better and encourages the anti-vaxxers who are the problem’s nub, to actually do something useful to themselves and others in their somewhat sad conspiracy-filled lives.

If they still refuse, since there are twisted individuals who actually enjoy lockdowns, make it a legal requirement.

To think that second lockdown was still going on a year ago and was about to end the following week. Times gone quick.

Now reported in Israel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Well b back said:

Now reported in Israel

Isreal may provide the first real world data about what the future holds. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let' hope higher infectivity goes with a less severe illness even if it can more easily defeat the vaccines.

We knew something like this would happen sooner or later - even if this one turns out to be a false alarm it is a dire warning that no country can be an island against the virus. It needs a world effort, and prompt world vaccination.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/08/2021 at 16:41, Upo said:

Complete immunity evasion is extremely unlikely. However, selection pressure promotes viral evolution towards higher immunity resistance and/or higher infectivity and development of variants with higher viral "fitness" is certainty in presence of infections. Studies show that Sars-CoV-2 is consistently evolving towards higher viral fitness.

Long term infectivity is a much bigger problem for mankind than virulence or immunity evasion. In principle, more infectious virus gets more chances to develop resistance against immunity than an immune-evasive virus gets to develop higher infectivity. In Sars-cov-2's case, reproduction number seems to correlate with virulence. Delta is atleast twice as infectious and probably about twice as deadly as the original variant.

At the bottom is a chart from April 2020. Delta R0 estimates currently round up to ca. 6. Waves of infections have been caused by orig./wild type, Alpha (B117)+Gamma (P1) and Delta respectively. Others are noise. This suggests doubling of infectivity every two generations, with 3 to 6 months between emergence of new dominant VOCs.

The recurring "waves" separated by similar times are consequence of viral characteristics and societal response. Each variant is consequence of this interaction due to its impact on selection pressure and volume of infections. Societies respond to new variants by increasing mitigating measures to match R0 of a strain, but generally do not overshoot, preferring to control and mitigate. This leads to sustained spread of infections and chances for viral evolution.

Peak of evolution probably occurs when cases are the highest, but selection pressure only truly starts to weed out the weaker variants under lockdowns and emergence of immunity in population (infections+vaccines). Once infections go down, restrictions are eased and the newly emerged variant begins to spread exponentially. Initial level of infections is low and viral spread is lost in background noise for a while. Once alarms go off that something new has developed, sequencing takes time, and confirmation of a new variant of concern (VOC) requires epidemiological observation for a period of time.

It seems that this "dance" takes about 3 to 6 months. The picture is muddled by variants developing in different geographic locations. Regardless, waves seem to propagate from region of origin to everywhere within a few months of its identification as a new VOC.

We thought that vaccines would short-circuit this interaction, but evidence is quite clear that the opposite is happening: Pre-existing infection derived immunity had already trained the virus to increase its fitness. The fact that delta developed under very little interaction against vaccines is evidence that herd immunity is unachievable. Delta hasn't succeeded in escaping immunity, which is why vaccines protect against severe disease. Instead, Delta has escaped herd immunity. This is critical, because infections drive viral evolution. Countermeasures let only the fittest survive.

My guess is that effective but incomplete mitigating measures drive viral infectiousness and population immunity drives immunity evasion. If we are lucky, virulence is a side effect of infectiousness. If we are unlucky, virulence is an important mechanism for infectiousness. I think the answer is a mix of both, leaning towards side effect. The fatality rate is too low. Unfortunately it is moving in the wrong direction, so it probably drives infectiousness too. It is notable that every strain has been more dangerous than the previous one.

Essentially mankind is the best P.T. a virus like sars-cov-2 could have: Always at the edge of suppressing the pandemic but never achieving it.

A doubling from current R0 6+ would create a variant competing with Measles as the most infectious disease we know. It is uncertain if there is any upper limit to potential infectiousness of sars-cov-2. I think it is plausible this will evolve into the most infectious disease mankind has ever faced. I'm on the fence whether it theoretically could evolve into the most infectious disease in the 4 billion year history of life.

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/when-will-it-be-over-an-introduction-to-viral-reproduction-numbers-r0-and-re/

KM-4.png

 

 

It is here. If 500% advantage over delta is true, this is by far the most infectious disease in mankind's history. We'll know its immunity evasiveness and virulence within 3 weeks. By then it has spread everywhere and it is too late.

 

FFGYrxzXwAArwWv?format=jpg&name=small

FFGYrxmXMBUAQWb?format=jpg&name=medium

Share this post


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

 

It is here. If 500% advantage over delta is true, this is by far the most infectious disease in mankind's history. We'll know its immunity evasiveness and virulence within 3 weeks. By then it has spread everywhere and it is too late.

 

FFGYrxzXwAArwWv?format=jpg&name=small

FFGYrxmXMBUAQWb?format=jpg&name=medium

Argh well we’re all going to die at some point! Nature’s way of getting rid of its own virus as my cousin in Sweden said last year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason to panic yet but I think they were wise to do what they have done. Once again some have said the vaccine is not quite good enough against this mutation. I hope they are wrong.

  • Like 1

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...