Corona Virus main thread

[ricardo 7,346]

2 minutes ago, Upo said:

It is time to ditch the old framework. You are not married to it.

I prefer the data to wild speculation.

[Upo 91]

Quote

“Young people, in their 20s to just over their late 30s, are coming in with moderate to severe disease, some needing intensive care. About 65% are not vaccinated and most of the rest are only half-vaccinated,” said Mathivha. “I’m worried that as the numbers go up, the public health care facilities will become overwhelmed.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/south-african-scientists-brace-for-wave-propelled-by-omicron

Any change in demographic profile towards younger age is bad news.

[Van wink 2,994]

7 minutes ago, Upo said:

 

It is completely irrelevant to current situation how "destabilized" the virus is. So far, every VOC has been deadlier than the previous one. In fact, there is not a single major strain that is milder than its predecessors. It's worse all the way.

What advantage does a more lethal virus have?

[Upo 91]

1 minute ago, ricardo said:

I prefer the data to wild speculation.

I presume you do not choose your driving speed by counting how many tickets you get or how many times you crash.

[Van wink 2,994]

3 minutes ago, Upo said:

I presume you do not choose your driving speed by counting how many tickets you get or how many times you crash.

wild speculation is exactly what is needed

[ricardo 7,346]

3 minutes ago, Van wink said:

What advantage does a more lethal virus have?

it brings out the conspiracy theorists.😉

[Upo 91]

Just now, Van wink said:

What advantage does a more lethal virus have?

Death is an irrelevant consequence for a virus that the host spreads before dying. A more virulent disease can cause symptoms faster and increase volume of viruses the host releases. It could be a significant benefit. Consider Black Death. Bubonic plague killed half of all Europeans (and millions elsewhere) before burning out after a couple years, and then it returned in deadly waves well into 17th century. Rabies kills 100% and exists. Ebola 50% and they really struggle to control it.

Here's what I wrote earlier:

"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."

[Van wink 2,994]

9 minutes ago, Upo said:

Death is an irrelevant consequence for a virus that the host spreads before dying. A more virulent disease can cause symptoms faster and increase volume of viruses the host releases. It could be a significant benefit. Consider Black Death. Bubonic plague killed half of all Europeans (and millions elsewhere) before burning out after a couple years, and then it returned in deadly waves well into 17th century. Rabies kills 100% and exists. Ebola 50% and they really struggle to control it.

Here's what I wrote earlier:

"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."

Well for a start Bubonic plague was caused by a bacteria and not a virus.............will look forward to you producing evidence that it has any relevance whatsoever to Covid.

You clearly haven't got a Scooby what you are talking about and I would politely suggest you **** off and stop spreading this ****e 🤨

[Indy 3,283]

10 minutes ago, Upo said:

Death is an irrelevant consequence for a virus that the host spreads before dying. A more virulent disease can cause symptoms faster and increase volume of viruses the host releases. It could be a significant benefit. Consider Black Death. Bubonic plague killed half of all Europeans (and millions elsewhere) before burning out after a couple years, and then it returned in deadly waves well into 17th century. Rabies kills 100% and exists. Ebola 50% and they really struggle to control it.

Here's what I wrote earlier:

"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."

Utterly pointless comparison as Rabies isn’t an airborne virus, the Black Death was mainly due to very poor hygiene and we have four months with the next generation tweaked vaccines, the reality is people like to go all over the top like you who can’t wait to say I told you so!

I think I will trust the science than panic merchants, but you panic away!

[Upo 91]

34 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Well for a start Bubonic plague was caused by a bacteria and not a virus.............will look forward to you producing evidence that it has any relevance whatsoever to Covid.

You clearly haven't got a Scooby what you are talking about and I would politely suggest you **** off and stop spreading this ****e 🤨

I know very well what caused Bubonic plague and using it as an analogous example for a deadly deadly pandemic is not out of place here.

But I see you're evading my point on purpose.

38 minutes ago, Indy said:

Utterly pointless comparison as Rabies isn’t an airborne virus, the Black Death was mainly due to very poor hygiene and we have four months with the next generation tweaked vaccines, the reality is people like to go all over the top like you who can’t wait to say I told you so!

I think I will trust the science than panic merchants, but you panic away!

I'm not panicking. I'm prepared. It is just unfortunately that pollyannas, denialists, anti-vaxxers, and some pathological individuals (usually politicians or high officials) or psychotic QAnon-tier tinfoil hatters are denying people the opportunity to protect themselves with means that are widely available.

[Aggy 752]

43 minutes ago, Indy said:

Utterly pointless comparison as Rabies isn’t an airborne virus, the Black Death was mainly due to very poor hygiene and we have four months with the next generation tweaked vaccines, the reality is people like to go all over the top like you who can’t wait to say I told you so!

I think I will trust the science than panic merchants, but you panic away!

I suspect Upo isn’t panicking and is instead fishing. Blocked a long time ago.

[Indy 3,283]

3 minutes ago, Aggy said:

I suspect Upo isn’t panicking and is instead fishing. Blocked a long time ago.

Another Swindon type?

[Aggy 752]

3 hours ago, sonyc said:

As for the media reaction (some rather OTT) then I suppose that 'moronic' is a suitable anagram of the variant.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-28/omicron-pretty-mild-so-far-south-african-health-expert-says

 

The media I expect it from - everything is sensationalist nowadays. A completely innocuous comment on anything is turned into “click bait”.

What’s strange with this strand though is that even actual scientists (including a member of sage) have come out and said some of their colleagues and other scientists ought to get a grip and stop blowing it out of proportion without sufficient data.

[1902 1,167]

1 hour ago, Upo said:

Death is an irrelevant consequence for a virus that the host spreads before dying. A more virulent disease can cause symptoms faster and increase volume of viruses the host releases. It could be a significant benefit. Consider Black Death. Bubonic plague killed half of all Europeans (and millions elsewhere) before burning out after a couple years, and then it returned in deadly waves well into 17th century. Rabies kills 100% and exists. Ebola 50% and they really struggle to control it.

Here's what I wrote earlier:

"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."

There are a number of issues with this. 

It is true that a virus which spreads before the death of the person who contracts it has less pressure to evolve to be less lethal. However there is still a number of reasons that COVID-19 is more likely to be less of a serious issue in future. 

Firstly, any mutation that confers an advantage to evading the immune system which has been prepared by vaccines will pay a biological cost. This often leads to decreased transmissibility. 

Secondly, our T-cell responses are exceptionally effective at identifying infections from years ago across a vast continuum of genetic space. This probably means it will be difficult for Covid to escape vaccine protection completely. 

Thirdly, viruses constantly evolve, but they nearly always face diminishing returns. Covid 19 will become more efficient at infecting us, but the rate and extent of that efficiency gain is likely to slow. To an extent we have already seen this, this is the most concerning variant since Delta and we don't actually know if it has considerable advantages yet.

The combination of these three factors means that it will probably not evolve into a simultaneously more deadly, more transmissible and more evasive virus. HIV and Influenza are far more rapidly evolving and even HIV has become less deadly over time due to mutating in ways which make it less vulnerable to anti-virals, that's within 30 years.

As for influenza, I have had it a few times in my life, as will everyone on here in all likelihood, and due to partial immunity, we usually end up fine. Whereas in a newly exposed population such as the indigenous people of the Americas, it wiped populations out. That was humanity 2 years ago, it faces a different world now.

All in all, it's not going away, but it's probably not going to continue being wave after wave of crisis, year to year.

 

Edited November 28, 2021 by 1902

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

5 hours ago, 1902 said:

 

Firstly, any mutation that confers an advantage to evading the immune system which has been prepared by vaccines will pay a biological cost. This often leads to decreased transmissibility. 

 

 

I'm a bit thick, can you explain what the above means, please.

[1902 1,167]

5 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

I'm a bit thick, can you explain what the above means, please.

It was just badly phrased and explained.

It was actually a little inaccurate, I should have said replicability. Essentially if a virus mutates to avoid something, it must use more energy and become more complex to do that. That in theory makes it harder for a virus to replicate or transmit.

I would like to say, this isn't the views of an expert, I am very much an interested amateur. So I may have misunderstood myself.

Generally, I tend to take the "wait and see" view beyond the confines of forums.

Edited November 29, 2021 by 1902

[CANARYKING 634]

Just watched the highlights of the Real Madrid game, everyone in the crowd masked up

[Barbe bleu 814]

7 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

I'm a bit thick, can you explain what the above means, please.

Hey RTB. In reality things are always more complicated but as a general rule I think the below applies. Bit long and  huge simplification I am afraid...

For a virus to enter a cell and hijack the cellular machinery to replicate it must first bind onto the cell at a particular place  (in this case the ACE2 receptors we hear about).

It binds to the cell by having a surface shape that is the opposite of the cell surface ( think two pieces of a puzzle, or a key in a lock). The more perfect the fit, the more infectious the virus becomes so the virus will naturally mutate to fit better (individual viruses won't mutate,  we are talking the virus as a whole).

Antibodies work in several ways but one of the ways is by latching onto the virus and thus changing its shape. If the fit becomes really poor as a result of have an antibody 'bump' the virus won't get in to the cell. The antibody/virus bind is the same, it requires a good fit, the better the fit the better the effect.  The body adapts antibodies to acheive a better fit.  

In the early days of an infection or after vaccination antibodies will only be able to fit vaguely, but in time the antibodies being produced will switch to  more specialist class with a more perfect fit (ie. Antibodies that work much better). The body will remember what works best and next time it sees the virus it can go straight to the well-honed response.

A virus that finds the perfect fit will eventually start to see bodies with a perfect response; To avoid these super antibodies it might have to change its surface shape but if it does so it lowers its ability  to bind onto the cell it requires...

If delta had a perfect fit to ACE2 it stands to reason that what comes after must be less perfect.  Sure it can evade the specialist defences better but that evasion comes at a cost to the virus (if cost is the right word).  But is delta the perfect fit version?

 

 

 

[Capt. Pants 4,195]

3 hours ago, CANARYKING said:

Just watched the highlights of the Real Madrid game, everyone in the crowd masked up

Barely a mask in sight at Carrow Rd Saturday.

Chaplefield today about 25% masked. I know it's not Tuesday yet but does the virus know that?

 

[sonyc 5,492]

Very long article sharing here (but long because of tables and graphs rather than text):

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker

Shows the XS death data by country which many posters here believe is the most 'neutral' indicator in considering the impact of the pandemic.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

56 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

Barely a mask in sight at Carrow Rd Saturday.

Chaplefield today about 25% masked. I know it's not Tuesday yet but does the virus know that?

 

Spoke to brother in law in Jalon yesterday and he said mask wearing had not been stopped there. Still compulsory.

[Van wink 2,994]

1 hour ago, Capt. Pants said:

Barely a mask in sight at Carrow Rd Saturday.

Chaplefield today about 25% masked. I know it's not Tuesday yet but does the virus know that?

 

Never been asked for vaccine passport at CR. Went to big rugby game in Wales and only allowed in after showing same.

[ricardo 7,346]

1 hour ago, Capt. Pants said:

Barely a mask in sight at Carrow Rd Saturday.

Chaplefield today about 25% masked. I know it's not Tuesday yet but does the virus know that?

 

Nobody is going to wear masks in an outside environment, its a pointless comfort blanket. Shops and indoor areas fair enough, I'm happy to comply out of courtesy to others but lets be honest here, the efficacy of masks is so marginal as to make virtually no difference.

Wearing a mask is like trying to keep a fart in your trousers

Edited November 29, 2021 by ricardo

[SwindonCanary 455]

I'm going for a run all over Swindon and never wear a mask. Although I do wear it when in a crowd or shop, and touch wood, I've not caught the virus yet. You may have seen me at the ground the only one wearing a face mask.

Edited November 29, 2021 by SwindonCanary

[ricardo 7,346]

National

42,583 -  35

rate of increase of 3.7%       on the cusp of turning negative

 

Local

Norwich   West rate             268.2     fluctuating but low numbers   Local   R  estimated 0.9 - 1.1

 

     

N&N Patients

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

Vax     

1st Dose      21,493              88.6% done                               Norwich numbers   77.5% 

2nd Dose     29,455              80.6% done                                                                  70.5%

Booster     285,335     total          17,896,864                 31.1%

In Hospital  

26-11-2021	7,530
25-11-2021	7,641
24-11-2021	7,656
23-11-2021	7,906
22-11-2021	8,125
21-11-2021	8,030
20-11-2021	7,935

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

Nobody is going to wear masks in an outside environment, its a pointless comfort blanket. Shops and indoor areas fair enough, I'm happy to comply out of courtesy to others but lets be honest here, the efficacy of masks is so marginal as to make virtually no difference.

Wearing a mask is like trying to keep a fart in your trousers

Depends what you read and who you believe. I do not see any harm in mask wearing in an inside environment. Its hardly an imposition. And anything that may contribute has to be encouraged.

But it must be a decent one, at least double layer cloth and washed regularly.

Mask wearing was always seen as a method to help control of epidemics as far back as the 14th century. Basically, they have just fallen out of favour.

But of course, that is from the research I prefer to accept. Other research is available.

[ricardo 7,346]

6 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Depends what you read and who you believe. I do not see any harm in mask wearing in an inside environment. Its hardly an imposition. And anything that may contribute has to be encouraged.

But it must be a decent one, at least double layer cloth and washed regularly.

Mask wearing was always seen as a method to help control of epidemics as far back as the 14th century. Basically, they have just fallen out of favour.

But of course, that is from the research I prefer to accept. Other research is available.

Day on day cases have already started to fall but in a couple of weeks time the same people will be telling us its masks what done it.

[Upo 91]

19 hours ago, 1902 said:

There are a number of issues with this. 

It is true that a virus which spreads before the death of the person who contracts it has less pressure to evolve to be less lethal. However there is still a number of reasons that COVID-19 is more likely to be less of a serious issue in future. 

Firstly, any mutation that confers an advantage to evading the immune system which has been prepared by vaccines will pay a biological cost. This often leads to decreased transmissibility. 

Secondly, our T-cell responses are exceptionally effective at identifying infections from years ago across a vast continuum of genetic space. This probably means it will be difficult for Covid to escape vaccine protection completely. 

Thirdly, viruses constantly evolve, but they nearly always face diminishing returns. Covid 19 will become more efficient at infecting us, but the rate and extent of that efficiency gain is likely to slow. To an extent we have already seen this, this is the most concerning variant since Delta and we don't actually know if it has considerable advantages yet.

The combination of these three factors means that it will probably not evolve into a simultaneously more deadly, more transmissible and more evasive virus. HIV and Influenza are far more rapidly evolving and even HIV has become less deadly over time due to mutating in ways which make it less vulnerable to anti-virals, that's within 30 years.

As for influenza, I have had it a few times in my life, as will everyone on here in all likelihood, and due to partial immunity, we usually end up fine. Whereas in a newly exposed population such as the indigenous people of the Americas, it wiped populations out. That was humanity 2 years ago, it faces a different world now.

All in all, it's not going away, but it's probably not going to continue being wave after wave of crisis, year to year.

 

To your points

1st: There is no reason why a virus can't be both evasive and more transmissible. There was a popular hypothesis that stated that such a trade-off exists for corona, and it is one reason why there was speculation about delta being a dead-end for viral fitness. And here we are.

2nd: There is a lot of air between not escaping immunity and escaping immunity completely. You can have quite a bit of immunity to virus in terms of immune response and it can still be deadly.

3rd: Virus doesn't have to become more virulent or contagious to basically ruin everything forever. It just needs to keep ahead of population immunity and countermeasures. No sign corona is anywhere near maxed out in viral fitness.

There is absolutely no reason a virus would have to become less deadly to survive. Fatality rate could be irrelevant to its transmissibility or it could be an acceptable tradeoff for the virus.

Remember SARS1 had IFR 10%, which is 10x delta's. For MERS it was 30%. What separates SARS2 from MERS and SARS1 is that it transmits readily from people without symptoms and does it very efficiently. In principle, SARS2 could become 100% fatal and do just fine until every human is dead. All it needs to do is a) infect a lot of people, very fast, and with some delay between host becoming infectious and onset of identifiable symptoms or b) find another host species to jump in and out from as it burns through emerging human populations. That's what is keeping ebola and rabies lurking about.

[ricardo 7,346]

[Barbe bleu 814]

 

 

"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Upo, and Hell followed with him.” (Revelation 6:8)

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Barbe bleu