Continuation The One Covid-19 Science and Medicine Thread Part 4

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

Let me introduce you to our useless shower of **** that calls itself a government, led by a lazy good for nothing who has made a career out of avoiding work, especially anything hard, who might scrape a science O-level between the lot of them, and want to face in 3 directions at once without being held responsible for anything while shovelling our money into their mates' pockets...See, for example, the recent parliamentary select committee report on how useless they were.

And then there are chunks of The Great British Public, who, even during the tightest bits of our lockdown couldn't count to 2 (as in work out what 2 metres is), could not work out how to put on a face mask properly and did not know what their noses are. FFS, I, being in a high risk group, had to stop going out for walks on a couple of my usual local circuits (semi-rural Northumberland) on which I would usually see next to no-one, as those places were stowed out with folk from I know not where, no-one of whom knew what 2m is nor how to wear a mask. There is only so much barging into me I can take at the best of times, but during a major public health crisis?

And that's before we get into the anti-vax/5G/nanochip/"experimental gene therapy"/Freedumb "libertarian" idiots...

That may be true where you are, but round here we are assiduous in our COVID practices. Why only last night several friends and I tested ourselves before going to the pub. We even shared the same nasal swab to save on plastic waste. Great bunch of lads!

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Twice a bad flu day before flu season really kicks in? That’s bad. NHS could become overwhelmed with quickly which means there would be more other preventable deaths as patients go untreated.

I am not in favour of what the Poms are doing and why this is happening is no mystery at all. The vaccination rates are not high enough to prevent a lot of infections to begin with but there seem to be almost no precautions taken, no mask wearing except for some of the more sensible members of the public such as those Poms on the forum, full capacity stadiums, crowded indoor venues without masks etc…. You couldn’t do much more to spread the virus if you tried.

Winter is coming and with it yet another wave.

Population studies show that >90% of the UK population have antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (from both natural infection and vaccination). Eighty percent of the population have been double vaccinated, 86% have had a single vaccination, much of the gap is with the recent introduction of childhood vaccination.

It is true that the numbers of infections are partly driven by high rates in the youngest and that vaccine uptake in this group is poor, parents seem surprisingly reluctant, and anti-vaxxers are really focussing on this. Every weekend recently I have seen demonstrations from anti-vaxxers handing out leaflets and focussing on protecting children from genocidal experimental vaccines produced by the military industrial complex (apart from denying CoVID-19 is real).

I am not sure that vaccination is the answer to infection, I do think booster vaccinations will be important in the older and more vulnerable who are at greatest risk of serious illness.

There was a deliberate decision to allow a surge of infection prior to winter. The modelling still suggests that rates will start dropping in November.

There are three competing vaccine programmes at present. Flu vaccination, where the most important impact will be made bu getting the highest coverage policy in children as children are the vectors of flu, but we also want to vaccinate the vulnerable and health and care workers. Booster vaccination for CoVID-19, probably most important in preventing serious illness. School vaccination for CoVID-19, probably most important in reducing infection rates. This is stretching the public health system.

[The Atheist]

China starting to get some Covid action.

With 11 provinces showing up infections they're going to struggle to shut it down, and the cost to the economy will be a major concern when their economy is already weaker than expected.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/chin...ficial-2586787

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Planigale

Population studies show that >90% of the UK population have antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (from both natural infection and vaccination). Eighty percent of the population have been double vaccinated, 86% have had a single vaccination, much of the gap is with the recent introduction of childhood vaccination.

It is true that the numbers of infections are partly driven by high rates in the youngest and that vaccine uptake in this group is poor, parents seem surprisingly reluctant, and anti-vaxxers are really focussing on this. Every weekend recently I have seen demonstrations from anti-vaxxers handing out leaflets and focussing on protecting children from genocidal experimental vaccines produced by the military industrial complex (apart from denying CoVID-19 is real).

I am not sure that vaccination is the answer to infection, I do think booster vaccinations will be important in the older and more vulnerable who are at greatest risk of serious illness.

There was a deliberate decision to allow a surge of infection prior to winter. The modelling still suggests that rates will start dropping in November.

There are three competing vaccine programmes at present. Flu vaccination, where the most important impact will be made bu getting the highest coverage policy in children as children are the vectors of flu, but we also want to vaccinate the vulnerable and health and care workers. Booster vaccination for CoVID-19, probably most important in preventing serious illness. School vaccination for CoVID-19, probably most important in reducing infection rates. This is stretching the public health system.

*sigh*

No, those figures you are citing only seem to be of those eligible.

The virus doesn't care who is eligible though, so really you need to count the population as a whole.

[dann]

Share of people vaccinated against COVID-19, Oct 24, 2021

UK: 66.77% fully, 6.07% partly, total 72.84%.

[dann]

Webinar last night, CET, with Dr. Deepti Gurdasani, Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding and many others:

Mexico City: 12 noon, Sunday, October 24
London: 6pm, Sunday, October 24
Berlin: 7pm, Sunday, October 24
Istanbul: 8pm, Sunday, October 24
Mumbai: 10.30pm, Sunday, October 24
Beijing: 1am, Monday, October 25
Sydney: 4am, Monday, October 25
Auckland: 6am, Monday, October 25
HOW TO END THE PANDEMIC - AN INTERNATIONAL WEBINAR WITH SCIENTISTS AND WORKERS (WSWS.org)

On YouTube: How to end the pandemic - Oct 24, 2021 3:33:50

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

China starting to get some Covid action.

With 11 provinces showing up infections they're going to struggle to shut it down, and the cost to the economy will be a major concern when their economy is already weaker than expected.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/chin...ficial-2586787

The numbers being reported seem tiny to me, for a country of 1.4 billion.

Quote:

China reported 26 new local confirmed Covid-19 infections on Saturday, including seven in Inner Mongolia, six in Gansu, six in Ningxia, four in Beijing, one in Hebei, one in Hunan and one in Shaanxi, according to the National Health Commission. Another four local asymptomatic cases were reported in Hunan and Yunnan.

If it's true, they're doing really great, but something tells me that the true numbers are likely being suppressed and these numbers are fictional. For propaganda reasons.

There are several countries whose official numbers cannot be trusted. Turkmenistan is another one. But everyone can see that Turkmenistan is obviously lying. China is smart to not claim zero infections, but instead a very tiny number, because it's just on the edge of plausibility.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Planigale

There was a deliberate decision to allow a surge of infection prior to winter. The modelling still suggests that rates will start dropping in November.

I think they already have, and we'll know for sure in the next few days.

Originally Posted by Puppycow

The numbers being reported seem tiny to me, for a country of 1.4 billion.

They are, but considering the whole mess started with a single case, they won't stay that way for long without extreme measures, like their first lockdown in Wuhan.

I don't believe even China has the ability to replicate that everywhere at once.

Originally Posted by Puppycow

China is smart to not claim zero infections, but instead a very tiny number, because it's just on the edge of plausibility.

If the numbers go seriously red they won't be able to hide it for long.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

*sigh*

No, those figures you are citing only seem to be of those eligible.

The virus doesn't care who is eligible though, so really you need to count the population as a whole.

I am not sure of the accuracy of your data! UAE does not vaccinate young children, has a young population but reports a very high percent population vaccinated. It also vaccinates a lot of non-residents. I wonder if not all the numerator are actually UAE residents.

You can look at the detailed data for the whole English / UK population here. The under 16 data from the school survey is less up to date but you can see the antibody levels are consistently > 95% in adult > 25 yr and nearly 90% in those 16 - 24. In terms of population immunity this is the critical figure, not the source of the immunity. Protection from natural infection and vaccination seem similar in efficacy.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...hts/antibodies

The school survey tests for natural infection, and one quarter of teachers have had a natural infection.

[dann]

Are you saying that these numbers are wrong?

Originally Posted by dann

Share of people vaccinated against COVID-19, Oct 24, 2021
UK: 66.77% fully, 6.07% partly, total 72.84%.

Or is your point that many of the unvaccinated have antibodies because they were infected?

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by dann

Are you saying that these numbers are wrong?



Or is your point that many of the unvaccinated have antibodies because they were infected?

Both.

For the UK getting a denominator population is notoriously difficult. I am sure it may be for other countries, but as the UK keeps no effective record of residency the best is an estimate based on census data. I think the ONS data is likely to be more accurate than a website.

[marting]

A marginal and even more marginal paper on Mycarditis in young males.

Marginal preprint:
SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination-Associated Myocarditis in Children Ages 12-17: A Stratified National Database Analysis

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....30.21262866v1

Gorski has a long writeup ripping into it with lots of references from others.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dum...s-antivaxxers/
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special...clusives/94530

And this one's a hoot. Apparenty peer reviewed and online before publication then removed:

A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34601006/

This one is a goodie. Here's a quote from the abstract:

Quote:

COVID-19 injectable products are novel and have a genetic, pathogenic mechanism of action causing uncontrolled expression of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein within human cells.

And this passed peer review? Apparently it got pulled from final publication and removed online.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....30.21262866v1

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by marting

A marginal and even more marginal paper on Mycarditis in young males.

Marginal preprint:
SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination-Associated Myocarditis in Children Ages 12-17: A Stratified National Database Analysis

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....30.21262866v1

Gorski has a long writeup ripping into it with lots of references from others.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dum...s-antivaxxers/
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special...clusives/94530

And this one's a hoot. Apparenty peer reviewed and online before publication then removed:

A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34601006/

This one is a goodie. Here's a quote from the abstract:



And this passed peer review? Apparently it got pulled from final publication and removed online.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....30.21262866v1

Oh wow! I was literally writing about exactly the same thing in the "long-term" Covid thread in Social Issues.

It seems that Guardian article linking to the Hoeg et al study is still being used.

[Puppycow]

I’ve noticed a trend among anti-vaxxers to avoid the word “vaccine” when referring to Covid-19 vaccines. Here they talk about “injectable products” for example.

I’m not sure why this has become a talking point, but I’ve come to see it as a bit of a red flag for vaccine misinformation. If you notice someone referring to the vaccines with another word, take note.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I’ve noticed a trend among anti-vaxxers to avoid the word “vaccine” when referring to Covid-19 vaccines. Here they talk about “injectable products” for example.

I’m not sure why this has become a talking point, but I’ve come to see it as a bit of a red flag for vaccine misinformation. If you notice someone referring to the vaccines with another word, take note.

Yeah, some anti-vaxxers have started saying that the mRNA vaccine, for example, is not a vaccine.

I don't know why or whether this is just a "cunning" strategy to rebrand themselves as not anti-vaxxers.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Yeah, some anti-vaxxers have started saying that the mRNA vaccine, for example, is not a vaccine.

I don't know why or whether this is just a "cunning" strategy to rebrand themselves as not anti-vaxxers.

Well to be pedantic, only smallpox vaccine made from vaccinia virus is a vaccine, (although arguably on a broader interpretation of the origin of vaccine from vacca - cow you could include BCG made from bovine TB). The rest are all immunisations. This is a bit like confusing Hoovers and vacuum cleaners.

ETA
I know vaccine is now used to mean a broad range of immunisations and vaccinology exists as a rather ugly term for an interesting area of practical science.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Planigale

Well to be pedantic, only smallpox vaccine made from vaccinia virus is a vaccine, (although arguably on a broader interpretation of the origin of vaccine from vacca - cow you could include BCG made from bovine TB). The rest are all immunisations. This is a bit like confusing Hoovers and vacuum cleaners.

LOL! Yes, but of course that would be the etymological fallacy. It would be like arguing that it is impossible to hang up the phone.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

LOL! Yes, but of course that would be the etymological fallacy. It would be like arguing that it is impossible to hang up the phone.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Planigale

Well to be pedantic, only smallpox vaccine made from vaccinia virus is a vaccine, (although arguably on a broader interpretation of the origin of vaccine from vacca - cow you could include BCG made from bovine TB). The rest are all immunisations. This is a bit like confusing Hoovers and vacuum cleaners.

ETA
I know vaccine is now used to mean a broad range of immunisations and vaccinology exists as a rather ugly term for an interesting area of practical science.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

LOL! Yes, but of course that would be the etymological fallacy. It would be like arguing that it is impossible to hang up the phone.

I got the distinct impression that these people were making an etymological fallacy.

Yes, I am aware that the word is derived from the latin word for cow, because the very first vaccine used cowpox, which was similar to smallpox, but less deadly, but close enough that it could make the immune system more resistant to smallpox. But there are lots of words whose definitions have shifted over time, and modern vaccines need not come from a cow or have anything to do with a cow.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by marting

A marginal and even more marginal paper on Mycarditis in young males.

Marginal preprint:
SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination-Associated Myocarditis in Children Ages 12-17: A Stratified National Database Analysis

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....30.21262866v1

Gorski has a long writeup ripping into it with lots of references from others.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dum...s-antivaxxers/
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special...clusives/94530

And this one's a hoot. Apparenty peer reviewed and online before publication then removed:

A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34601006/

This one is a goodie. Here's a quote from the abstract:



And this passed peer review? Apparently it got pulled from final publication and removed online.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....30.21262866v1

I have an interest in the topic, as my son had a bout of myocarditis pericarditis which he is still recovering from. However, it occurred several weeks after his second jab, and he had AstraZeneca rather than Pfizer, so it seems unlikely to be connected.

[jimbob]

Meanwhile more Ivermectin shenanigans

https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1452771280290140168

Quote:

Quote:

Health Nerd
@GidMK
·
8h
This is the only remaining RCT that shows a significant benefit for ivermectin on COVID-19 mortality, and it cannot possibly have been randomized as described

It will be interesting to see how the ivermectin crowd respond
Quote Tweet

Quote:

Kyle Sheldrick
@K_Sheldrick
· 18h
An editorial note has been added to the preprint of the largest remaining un-retracted RCT supporting ivermectin to prevent death in COVID (by Dr Niaee et al), acknowledging concerns raised about whether it was actually randomised:
Show this thread

Quote:

Dr. Val
@heyval2
·
8h
Is this the one that randomized odd/even in order they were enrolled in the trial

Quote:

Health Nerd
@GidMK
Replying to
@heyval2
Nope, this was a study that described itself as cluster-randomized but placed every person with O2<70% in the control group and every person with O2>95% in the ivermectin group (among other things)

11:57 PM · Oct 25, 2021·Twitter Web App

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

I have an interest in the topic, as my son had a bout of myocarditis pericarditis which he is still recovering from. However, it occurred several weeks after his second jab, and he had AstraZeneca rather than Pfizer, so it seems unlikely to be connected.

Oh dear! Sorry to hear about that. I hope he feels better soon.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

*sigh*

No, those figures you are citing only seem to be of those eligible.

The virus doesn't care who is eligible though, so really you need to count the population as a whole.

sigh plus.
Same everywhere. And the people will be confused when 5 to 11s are eligible and 90% is suddenly 80%.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Planigale

There was a deliberate decision to allow a surge of infection prior to winter. The modelling still suggests that rates will start dropping in November.

There are three competing vaccine programmes at present. Flu vaccination, where the most important impact will be made bu getting the highest coverage policy in children as children are the vectors of flu, but we also want to vaccinate the vulnerable and health and care workers. Booster vaccination for CoVID-19, probably most important in preventing serious illness. School vaccination for CoVID-19, probably most important in reducing infection rates. This is stretching the public health system.

I skipped over this before, but I want to return to it.

A "deliberate decision to allow a surge of infection"? This sounds crazily irresponsible to me. Who made this decision?

I mean, you say it is based on modelling, but if you let the virus loose, you lose control over it. What happens if instead of the virus burning out by November, people took a modicum of precautions and the virus didn't spread as quickly until it suddenly peaked in the winter?

Isn't this a harebrained plan?

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I skipped over this before, but I want to return to it.

A "deliberate decision to allow a surge of infection"? This sounds crazily irresponsible to me. Who made this decision?

I mean, you say it is based on modelling, but if you let the virus loose, you lose control over it. What happens if instead of the virus burning out by November, people took a modicum of precautions and the virus didn't spread as quickly until it suddenly peaked in the winter?

Isn't this a harebrained plan?

It sort of makes some sense to me as a way of "flattening the curve".

Instead of one huge spike in the winter, you get a smaller one in the fall and then another smaller one in the winter, so hospitals don't get overloaded all at once.

Maybe that's not a good plan, but I think I can see the logic in it.

Of course this is based on the assumption that more cases now means fewer cases later.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I skipped over this before, but I want to return to it.

A "deliberate decision to allow a surge of infection"? This sounds crazily irresponsible to me. Who made this decision?

I mean, you say it is based on modelling, but if you let the virus loose, you lose control over it. What happens if instead of the virus burning out by November, people took a modicum of precautions and the virus didn't spread as quickly until it suddenly peaked in the winter?

Isn't this a harebrained plan?

Modelling suggests that deferring the peak may result in a larger peak later. What was wanted was to avoid a large peak in winter when pressures were highest on the health care system and when there may be flu circulating. The other issue was having completed vaccination for most high risk groups, there was the danger that the longer one waited the greater the decline in immunity from vaccination. The alternative was to try and keep lock down until the booster program +/- school vaccinations had been completed in December? Opening up then would have led to a surge in January mid expected flu surge, and post everyone getting together at Xmas and New Year.

Certainly my impression was that people were already ignoring restrictions in July / August. I am not certain that people would have kept to a tight restriction much longer. When ever the lockdown was eased (e.g. January) there would have been a surge. The thought was having a surge over summer / autumn was better than mid-winter. If rates fall pre-December then the modelling was correct. With > 90% of the population of the UK having antibodies (from a combination of natural infection and vaccination), based on random population sampling, the thought was that the population was about as protected as it could be and deferring opening up may make things worse due to declining immunity (which there has been evidence for over the past few months).

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Planigale

Modelling suggests that deferring the peak may result in a larger peak later.

It looks the right plan to me, and I'm hoping we have the balls to do the same here - we need to get past the pandemic asap, and getting immunity up one way or the other is essential.

And whatever it's sold as, you can't escape UK's results:

First 4 million cases resulted in 127,000 deaths.
The next 4.2 million cases have resulted in 12,000 deaths.

Isn't that the 90% reduction vaccines were supposed to create?

Originally Posted by Planigale

Certainly my impression was that people were already ignoring restrictions in July / August.

Bingo.

We have exactly that scenario here - the experts were calling for extension of the most stringent lockdown, but health services on the ground saw that it wasn't working, because people ignored the rules.

You can't keep people locked in forever.

[marting]

Andrew Hill, principal author of an influential positive ivermectin meta-analysis has a new paper out which shows much of the positive results came from poor quality and possibly fraudulent papers.

Ivermectin for COVID-19: addressing potential bias and medical fraud
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1003006/v1

Quote:

The results suggest that the significant effect of ivermectin on survival was dependent on largely poor quality and potentially fraudulent studies. This highlights the need for rigorous quality assessments, the need for authors to share patient level data and efforts to continue to avoid publication bias for registered studies.

[Chris_Halkides]

The cytokine Transforming Growth Factor β (TGFβ) has potent immune-modulatory effects, playing a role in downregulating the body’s immune response once a pathogen has been successfully controlled. For this reason, its production is normally timed to coincide with the end of an infection. Now, a new study finds a different situation with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. A Berlin-based team of researchers has revealed that patients with severe disease show an increase in the production of TGFβ as early as the first week of infection.

This work is published in Nature in the paper, “Untimely TGFβ responses in severe COVID-19 limit antiviral function of NK cells.” Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

It looks the right plan to me, and I'm hoping we have the balls to do the same here - we need to get past the pandemic asap, and getting immunity up one way or the other is essential.

And whatever it's sold as, you can't escape UK's results:

First 4 million cases resulted in 127,000 deaths.
The next 4.2 million cases have resulted in 12,000 deaths.

Isn't that the 90% reduction vaccines were supposed to create?



Bingo.

We have exactly that scenario here - the experts were calling for extension of the most stringent lockdown, but health services on the ground saw that it wasn't working, because people ignored the rules.

You can't keep people locked in forever.

Jeeezus wept!

I am not arguing that the government policy needs to be the most stringent lockdown, but that the UK government policy just seems to be rolling the dice on the back of a computer model that could go disatrously wrong if the calculations are wrong one side or another.

It seems the policy is this:

Let the virus spread just enough that the hospitals are not overwhelmed now, so that there are fewer susceptible people over the winter because of so-called "natural immunity".

But what if it doesn't spread enough before the winter? Then you have overwhelmed hospitals and potential lockdowns.

But what if it spreads too much and gets out of control? Then you have a lot of dead, hospitalized and ill people and/or lockdowns.

Why not at the very least try to pull some levers to get people to vaccinate at a greater rate. You can do that by using vaccine mandates with the opt-out version of a negative test, or maybe a test to show immunity from a previous infection.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Jeeezus wept!

I am not arguing that the government policy needs to be the most stringent lockdown, but that the UK government policy just seems to be rolling the dice on the back of a computer model that could go disatrously wrong if the calculations are wrong one side or another.

It seems the policy is this:

Let the virus spread just enough that the hospitals are not overwhelmed now, so that there are fewer susceptible people over the winter because of so-called "natural immunity".

But what if it doesn't spread enough before the winter? Then you have overwhelmed hospitals and potential lockdowns.

But what if it spreads too much and gets out of control? Then you have a lot of dead, hospitalized and ill people and/or lockdowns.

Why not at the very least try to pull some levers to get people to vaccinate at a greater rate. You can do that by using vaccine mandates with the opt-out version of a negative test, or maybe a test to show immunity from a previous infection.

Essentially the only groups left to vaccinate are young people. Everyone over 25 has been vaccinated >90%. Given that the UK leaves two months between first and second vaccines, there is a delay between first and second vaccine completion rates. Younger people and children (parents) certainly have a poorer uptake than the older population. I think that there would be no way that any UK government would mandate child vaccination.

Mandating vaccination sounds good, but with any policy you need to consider the consequences. Vaccination has been mandated for health and social care staff. Vaccine uptake has been surprisingly poor amongst health care staff. The result of mandating vaccination is people leaving, and contributing to a staffing crisis in social care.

I think it is worth repeating >90% of the population has antibodies against SARS-CoV-2; and that has been declining for months as immunity wains. The longer you wait to open up the more susceptible the population becomes. The worse the surge when you do open up. The Booster program will address this but given that the booster is given six months after the second dose and some (young) people are still receiving their second doses the booster program would not be complete until May 2022. By that time you may see waining in the most vulnerable who would be six months on from their boosters. Would people put up with another Christmas and New Year only allowed to spend it with their immediate household?

There is not a safe option, more restrictions now might result in a bigger crisis later in winter. Yes they are rolling the dice. But opening up now or restrictions now are both gambles. No one knows what will happen. It is an uncomfortable decision, but opening up over Summer and Autumn may be the best option but we will never know what would have happened if restrictions had been maintained.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Why not at the very least try to pull some levers to get people to vaccinate at a greater rate.

Then you end up with the absurd scenario we have here - a tiny percentage of moronic contrarians are holding the country to ransom.

I think you'll find in hindsight Johnson unbelievably got it right this time. Had to happen sooner or later.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Planigale

Essentially the only groups left to vaccinate are young people. Everyone over 25 has been vaccinated >90%. Given that the UK leaves two months between first and second vaccines, there is a delay between first and second vaccine completion rates. Younger people and children (parents) certainly have a poorer uptake than the older population. I think that there would be no way that any UK government would mandate child vaccination.

Mandating vaccination sounds good, but with any policy you need to consider the consequences. Vaccination has been mandated for health and social care staff. Vaccine uptake has been surprisingly poor amongst health care staff. The result of mandating vaccination is people leaving, and contributing to a staffing crisis in social care.

I think it is worth repeating >90% of the population has antibodies against SARS-CoV-2; and that has been declining for months as immunity wains. The longer you wait to open up the more susceptible the population becomes. The worse the surge when you do open up. The Booster program will address this but given that the booster is given six months after the second dose and some (young) people are still receiving their second doses the booster program would not be complete until May 2022. By that time you may see waining in the most vulnerable who would be six months on from their boosters. Would people put up with another Christmas and New Year only allowed to spend it with their immediate household?

There is not a safe option, more restrictions now might result in a bigger crisis later in winter. Yes they are rolling the dice. But opening up now or restrictions now are both gambles. No one knows what will happen. It is an uncomfortable decision, but opening up over Summer and Autumn may be the best option but we will never know what would have happened if restrictions had been maintained.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Then you end up with the absurd scenario we have here - a tiny percentage of moronic contrarians are holding the country to ransom.

I think you'll find in hindsight Johnson unbelievably got it right this time. Had to happen sooner or later.

I'll wait and see then. Obviously there is nothing I can do about it. But the first time round, I more or less trusted that they knew what they were doing despite my misgivings about how late it seemed they were to take action. It turned out that my misgivings were correct and the policy was a disaster.

This time round, ... I'm even less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[marting]

Clues that natural killer cells help to control COVID

Natural killer cells can destroy cells infected by SARS-CoV-2, but this immune-system defence malfunctions in people with severe COVID-19. Will this finding drive a search for ways to reinvigorate natural killer cells in such cases?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02778-y

[zooterkin]

The official UK daily figures have been lower than the same day the previous week for the last three days, which is encouraging. On the other hand, the ZOE Covid symptom study still has numbers going up.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by marting

Clues that natural killer cells help to control COVID

Natural killer cells can destroy cells infected by SARS-CoV-2, but this immune-system defence malfunctions in people with severe COVID-19. Will this finding drive a search for ways to reinvigorate natural killer cells in such cases?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02778-y

Good news, but it seems to have taken a very long time to see that. Had we been doing serious data mining from February last year, these things would already be known.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I'll wait and see then. Obviously there is nothing I can do about it. But the first time round, I more or less trusted that they knew what they were doing despite my misgivings about how late it seemed they were to take action. It turned out that my misgivings were correct and the policy was a disaster.

This time round, ... I'm even less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The problem is every country will need to make the same decision. SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic. Vaccines do not prevent (but do ameliorate) infection and disease. At some point you need to let the infection in and suffer the consequences. I do not see a significantly better vaccine arising. Possibly there is better medication, but I think sooner or later everyone will get infected.

Possibly a well set up testing system, contact tracing, social distancing, and full vaccination with Molnupiravir treatment for all test positives will minimise impact on a society. I think those who have done well up till now may not do so well in the future.

[Chris_Halkides]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

This work is published in Nature in the paper, “Untimely TGFβ responses in severe COVID-19 limit antiviral function of NK cells.” Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News

From the link above:
"Based on their findings, the researchers anticipate that the timely inhibition of TGFβ could prevent progression to severe COVID-19. Candidates capable of blocking the chemical messenger are currently undergoing testing as part of clinical trials."
From the paper itself:
Multilevel proteomics data support a specific dysregulation of TGFβ signaling by SARS-CoV-2 ORF834 and we had previously shown that TGFβ impairs B cell responses in the context of COVID-19 (ref. 35). Two MMP inhibitors (prinimostat, marimastat) that diminish TGFβ bioactivity profoundly inhibited replication of SARS-CoV-2 but not of SARS-CoV34."

[marting]

Lancet publishes Fluvoxamine paper from the TOGETHER trial.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...448-4/fulltext

Quote:

In the fluvoxamine group 79 (11%) participants had a primary outcome event compared with 119 (16%) in the placebo group (table 2). Most events (87%) were hospitalisations. On the basis of the Bayesian beta-binomial model, there was evidence of a benefit of fluvoxamine reducing the composite primary endpoint of hospitalisation defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to tertiary hospital due to COVID-19 (RR 0·68; 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 0·52–0·88) in the ITT population (figure 2A) and RR 0·69; 95% BCI 0·53–0·90 in a modified ITT population (figure 2B). The number needed to treat was 20. Per-protocol analysis showed a larger treatment effect (0·34, 95% BCI 0·21–0·54). The probability that the event rate was lower in the fluvoxamine group compared with placebo was 99·8% for the ITT population and 99·7% for the mITT population (figure 2A, B). When the DSMC met on Aug 5, 2021, it recommended that the TOGETHER trial stop randomly assigning patients to the fluvoxamine group, as this comparison had met the prespecified superiority criterion for the primary endpoint (prespecified superiority threshold 97·6%).

The protocol group was selected based on high >80% compliance taking medication.

Merck may have some competition.

As a side note. The TOGETHER trial also looked at ivermectin which showed a fairly small positive effect but nowhere near statistically significant. There were some slides that werre made public but I haven't seen any final paper on the IVM results.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

The ZOE figures for daily cases are extrapolated from the daily reports of the people using the app, as opposed to the official daily figures which are actual positive tests (and therefore lower than the real number, since not everyone is being tested). Another thing is that the official government figures are only counting new cases, so if you get a second infection that is not counted; I'm not sure if ZOE includes those in their daily total or not.

An update from ZOE on why their numbers are so much higher.

Quote:

The ZOE figures are consistently higher than the official confirmed daily cases because we get results from various sources, including self-reported lateral flow tests that are under-reported officially. The government raw figures report on PCR testing of the classical symptoms only, which miss around 40 percent of cases. ZOE extrapolates the data from our sample to predict daily infections in the wider population. With the confirmation of our estimates from the ONS’s fortnightly survey, it’s clear the government figures are a big under-estimate, and with the highest rates in Western Europe, there’s no room for complacency.