Coronavirus

[ad_orientem]

Because it is an unknown. We didn't know if it was milder and if so how much. With it being so transmissible even being milder the potential number of hospitalisations is high. It was, and is, about being cautious and trying not to overwhelm the NHS. We will get back to normal(ish) soon but need to get through the winter.

What gets me is many of the restrictions don't have much logic. Close a pub or a pool hall but not a school. The virus spreads equally in both. If you're going to have restrictions then they have to apply to everyone.

[Spud]

Can you account for them? What is the scientific basis for any significant difference in immunity in vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals? The most significant difference would seem to be fatality in those whose natural immune response goes into overdrive and kills the patient!

This recent preprint concludes that "Protection from reinfection decreases with time since previous infection, but is, nevertheless, higher than that conferred by vaccination with two doses at a similar time since the last immunity-conferring event. A single vaccine dose after infection helps to restore protection." The basis for this difference may be to do with the exposure to the whole pathogen, rather than one bit of it. The fatality caused by immune overdrive occurred from the beginning, it didn't wait until vaccines were available. Had they not been used,  immunity building up may have reduced the severity of disease within a year. In the study, naturally acquired immunity led to fourfold reduction in severity of re-infection compared with double vaccination.

[Maeght]

We already have a vaccine and which can be tweaked every season. The vaccine was supposed to be the way out. People are getting tired.

Of course people are tired and I'm sure restrictions will end pretty soon, but we have to accept that the virus isn't going away so have to manage it. Vaccines have made a huge difference but they were about reducing the effect of the novel virus not a silver bullet. The vaccine manufacturers have said they can tweak the vaccines and trials are ongoing but, as with flu, the tweaks are best guesses for what strains will be around so there is always potential for a new variant which the tweaked vaccine isn't so good for. Different vaccines may give better protection to a wider range of variants as we go on but we aren't there yet.

[Udayana]

We already have a vaccine and which can be tweaked every season. The vaccine was supposed to be the way out. People are getting tired.

Actually, on reflection, "normal" was pretty crap anyway! - Worldwide pollution, global warming, conflicts, poverty, exploitation ...

[Maeght]

What gets me is many of the restrictions don't have much logic. Close a pub or a pool hall but not a school. The virus spreads equally in both. If you're going to have restrictions then they have to apply to everyone.

They aren't currently trying to prevent all transmission but to reduce a surge in it and so are making choices on what is most important.

[ad_orientem]

They aren't currently trying to prevent all transmission but to reduce a surge in it and so are making choices on what is most important.

So kids get let off, spread it, but us adults don't. Lovely!

[Maeght]

So kids get let off, spread it, but us adults don't. Lovely!

Not sure what you mean by 'let off'.

[Udayana]

This recent preprint concludes that "Protection from reinfection decreases with time since previous infection, but is, nevertheless, higher than that conferred by vaccination with two doses at a similar time since the last immunity-conferring event. A single vaccine dose after infection helps to restore protection." The basis for this difference may be to do with the exposure to the whole pathogen, rather than one bit of it. The fatality caused by immune overdrive occurred from the beginning, it didn't wait until vaccines were available. Had they not been used,  immunity building up may have reduced the severity of disease within a year. In the study, naturally acquired immunity led to fourfold reduction in severity of re-infection compared with double vaccination.

It is feasible that immunity through infection might last a few weeks or months longer than that through vaccination - although that has not been generally proven - given that a wide variety of vaccines have become available (the study only considers Pfizer and variants before omicron). As far as is known, the vaccines provide long term protection against serious disease in the same way as natural infection.

But what you keep ignoring is that to build up immunity in the population as you suggest would have led to the unnecessary deaths (or long covid) in hundreds of thousands of people. If vaccinated people do become infected (just as those that have been naturally (re)infected) - the immune system has a chance to catch up, if needed, with less risk to life.
       

[Spud]

Can you find a link?

Here's where I saw it (paragraph 2 of the discussion) but the context seems to be that if the mutation rate increases, the virus goes extinct.

That's not what the paper said though I think. It was complicated though.

How has vaccination accelerated the spread?

One way may be by replacing our innate antibodies which can neutralize a broad spectrum of strains (at low viral load) with antigen-specific antibodies, which have higher affinity for the new strains than the innate abs, thus are preventing the innate abs from complexing with them, while not preventing infection of the cells because they are specific to the original strain. So for healthy and young people who could have cleared infection by VOCs before the adaptive immunity builds up, they now have to wait until that immunity builds up, ie they get more severe disease. This in turn accelerates transmission, due to heavier shedding.

Everything I have read says that the innate immune system is limited in it's effectiveness. You have stated this before as if fact but haven't seen any supporting links for it. I may have missed them but do you have any?

From GVB's website some references he cites..

I heard that it came from Delta but have seen nothing definitive. Again, any links to support what you have just said? No one I have read has claimed that Omicron resulted from use of the vaccines.

Edit: Have seen there is a Chinese study which says this but also found this which says many scientists have been sceptical of the animal cause of Omicron since Sars-Cov-2 isn't good at infecting mice. It says that scientists have modified Sars-Cov-2 to make it infect mice in labs so ......

https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/did-omicron-come-from-mice-chinese-scientists-believe-so/

I don't really know enough to debate this any further but, I have asked several times, with no answer, why you think the vast majority of experts in the field support mass vaccination? They are surely aware of the sort of things you are talking about. Why do you think we aren't seeing the majority of virologists and the like crying out to stop the vaccine roll outs?

In my opinion the vaccination should have been for elderly and those with comorbidities only. Doctors worked out how to treat the disease before this, and enabling people to recover carries the benefit that they contribute to herd immunity. But also, I am wary of the medical profession. There is clearly a motive within it and in government to be seen to be doing its utmost. That combined with a complete absence of supplementary advice, eg dental hygiene, diet, improvement of overall health, and a long-standing belief that some parts of the human body are vestigial and useless (remember the days of tonsil and appendix removal for the sake of it?), or not up to the job (ie the immune system), I think led them to go all out for mass vaccination.

[ad_orientem]

Not sure what you mean by 'let off'.

They can play with their friends at school but adults can't go to a pub for a pint with a mate.

[Maeght]

Here's where I saw it (paragraph 2 of the discussion) but the context seems to be that if the mutation rate increases, the virus goes extinct.
One way may be by replacing our innate antibodies which can neutralize a broad spectrum of strains (at low viral load) with antigen-specific antibodies, which have higher affinity for the new strains thus not allowing the innate abs to complex with them, while do not prevent infection of the cells because they are specific to the original strain. So for healthy and young people who could have cleared infection by VOCs before the adaptive immunity builds up, they now have to wait until that immunity builds up, ie they get more severe disease. This in turn accelerates transmission, due to heavier shedding.
From GVB's website some references he cites..
In my opinion the vaccination should have been for elderly and those with comorbidities only. Doctors worked out how to treat the disease before this, and enabling people to recover carries the benefit that they contribute to herd immunity. But also, I am wary of the medical profession. There is clearly a motive within it and in government to be seen to be doing its utmost. That combined with a complete absence of supplementary advice, eg dental hygiene, diet, improvement of overall health, and a long-standing belief that some parts of the human body are vestigial and useless (remember the days of tonsil and appendix removal for the sake of it?), or not up to the job (ie the immune system), I think led them to go all out for mass vaccination.

Thanks.

[Udayana]

Here's where I saw it (paragraph 2 of the discussion) but the context seems to be that if the mutation rate increases, the virus goes extinct.

That's a nice paper, but of-course does not support the idea that vaccination causes higher or faster spread. If anything it suggests vaccines should target more areas of the virus, making escape variants harder to emerge.

 
...

In my opinion the vaccination should have been for elderly and those with comorbidities only. Doctors worked out how to treat the disease before this, and enabling people to recover carries the benefit that they contribute to herd immunity.

That would have been reasonable considering that the elderly or vulnerable in much of the world were unable to obtain vaccine supplies, but of-course sending vaccines abroad could not been countenanced politically, even to Europe. If only we had had contingency plans for dealing with epidemics ... or even a half-competent government people could trust!
 

...

[Spud]

It is feasible that immunity through infection might last a few weeks or months longer than that through vaccination - although that has not been generally proven - given that a wide variety of vaccines have become available (the study only considers Pfizer and variants before omicron). As far as is known, the vaccines provide long term protection against serious disease in the same way as natural infection.

But what you keep ignoring is that to build up immunity in the population as you suggest would have led to the unnecessary deaths (or long covid) in hundreds of thousands of people.

Yes, I know more people may in theory have died without mass vaccination. However, there are models that could be looked at to prevent this, such as early treatment following a positive test, say with antivirals on an outpatient basis. This was proposed by GVB, who has said that the main problem is allowing the infectious pressure to get out of control. Antivirals would bring it down and this would prevent naturally protected people (by innate immunity) from becoming susceptible to infection (because the innate system can't cope with high infectious pressure).

If vaccinated people do become infected (just as those that have been naturally (re)infected) - the immune system has a chance to catch up, if needed, with less risk to life.

Not sure about this. Problem being that when variants arise, the memory cells recall antibodies which match the original virus but not the variants. This will lead to severe disease because the old vaccinal abs and the innate abs will both be unable to prevent infection. So it may not be 'if' but 'when' vaccinated people do become infected.

[Aruntraveller]

Antivirals may well be one of the ways forward now - but not originally. So your "in theory" is useless. Without vaccination, a lot larger number of people would have died.

[Maeght]

saw this study about how little protection prior infection gives against reinfection with Omicron.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/omicron-largely-evades-immunity-from-past/

Any thoughts Spud?

[Nearly Sane]

Party at No 10. Bring your booze. Piss on the electorate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59946784

[jeremyp]

Party at No 10. Bring your booze. Piss on the electorate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59946784

I think Dominic Cummning's blog on the subject makes interesting reading

https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/parties-photos-trolleys-variants

Even if only to show how much he's got it in for Johnson.

[ad_orientem]

Given the rise in cases over here due to omicron the health authority for the region I live in, Uusimaa (which includes Helsinki), has decided to wind down it's en masse trace and quarantine programme as it can no longer do it effectively. From now on they will concentrate on hospitals, old peoples' homes etc. Probably the right thing to do.

[Spud]

Antivirals may well be one of the ways forward now - but not originally. So your "in theory" is useless. Without vaccination, a lot larger number of people would have died.

Yes, I'm very aware of this, however, many more will in future and my question is whether that would be the case had the pandemic taken its course naturally. I know of one South African and one US consultant who treated thousands of patients for coronavirus very successfully. They used methods that hadn't been recommended by the establishment (I don't mean in the sense that they were advised not to use them, but that they weren't protocol).

[Spud]

saw this study about how little protection prior infection gives against reinfection with Omicron.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/omicron-largely-evades-immunity-from-past/

Any thoughts Spud?

I've got 29 tabs open, mostly on this subject, so now I can have 30!

[SteveH]

Party at No 10. Bring your booze. Piss on the electorate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59946784

Drinks cabinet?

[Spud]

saw this study about how little protection prior infection gives against reinfection with Omicron.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/omicron-largely-evades-immunity-from-past/

Any thoughts Spud?

Yes I think it's to be expected. Imagine for a moment that I'm writing an exam essay on why naturally acquired immunity appears not to be permanent. With my limited knowledge and using the models explained by Geert, I can at least have a go.

In theory, and perhaps historically, the third wave of a pandemic in which minimal intervention measures are implemented would be characterized in its latter stage by more infectious variants that can overcome the innate antibodies in the fittest of the population who so far have only been asymptomatically infected, leading to disease in those people.

I imagine that further global waves of infection would in that scenario be prevented by the fact that the whole process would happen in a much more condensed time frame than what we have seen with Covid-19. In that scenario: while symptomatic disease is increasingly occurring in people of increasing fitness, there is a build-up of long-lasting immunity. As we know, this immunity is depleted after a year or two, but it's there long enough to see in 'herd immunity'. The reason we have had a prolonged pandemic is because the lockdowns have prolonged the periods between waves, and mass vaccination has (I think) put extra evolutionary pressure on the virus.

Concerning the latter, I imagine the fitness cost of becoming more infectious would under non-vaccination circumstances prevent these variants from becoming dominant. But with mass vaccination, a more infectious variant is the only one that can be transmitted from one vaccinated person to another vaccinated person.

Natural selection theory would suggest that just because a more infectious variant can survive in an environment of high immune pressure, it doesn't follow that it would survive better without that pressure. Dominance of more infectious variants would occur when the immune pressure increases due to lock down and vaccination, but without that increase, maybe less infectious strains would have continued to be dominant.

Maybe there is some fitness cost of increased infectiousness such that a more infectious virus wouldn't be as efficient as less infectious strains in the absence of the high immune pressure generated on top of natural immunity by vaccines?

Edit: I meant to say that this would explain why naturally acquired antigen-specific immunity to coronaviruses lasts for the length of time it does. Historically the high levels of antibodies were only needed for long enough to ensure herd immunity.

Edit 2: if a voc emerges in a region where there are high levels of suboptimal immune pressure, the 'fitneas cost' phenomenon might prevent spread outside that region where there is less immune pressure.

[Maeght]

Yes I think it's to be expected. Imagine for a moment that I'm writing an exam essay on why naturally acquired immunity appears not to be permanent. With my limited knowledge and using the models explained by Geert, I can at least have a go.

In theory, and perhaps historically, the third wave of a pandemic in which minimal intervention measures are implemented would be characterized in its latter stage by more infectious variants that can overcome the innate antibodies in the fittest of the population who so far have only been asymptomatically infected, leading to disease in those people.

I imagine that further global waves of infection would in that scenario be prevented by the fact that the whole process would happen in a much more condensed time frame than what we have seen with Covid-19. In that scenario: while symptomatic disease is increasingly occurring in people of increasing fitness, there is a build-up of long-lasting immunity. As we know, this immunity is depleted after a year or two, but it's there long enough to see in 'herd immunity'. The reason we have had a prolonged pandemic is because the lockdowns have prolonged the periods between waves, and mass vaccination has (I think) put extra evolutionary pressure on the virus.

Concerning the latter, I imagine the fitness cost of becoming more infectious would under non-vaccination circumstances prevent these variants from becoming dominant. But with mass vaccination, a more infectious variant is the only one that can be transmitted from one vaccinated person to another vaccinated person.

Natural selection theory would suggest that just because a more infectious variant can survive in an environment of high immune pressure, it doesn't follow that it would survive better without that pressure. Dominance of more infectious variants would occur when the immune pressure increases due to lock down and vaccination, but without that increase, maybe less infectious strains would have continued to be dominant.

Maybe there is some fitness cost of increased infectiousness such that a more infectious virus wouldn't be as efficient as less infectious strains in the absence of the high immune pressure generated on top of natural immunity by vaccines?

Edit: I meant to say that this would explain why naturally acquired antigen-specific immunity to coronaviruses lasts for the length of time it does. Historically the high levels of antibodies were only needed for long enough to ensure herd immunity.

Edit 2: if a voc emerges in a region where there are high levels of suboptimal immune pressure, the 'fitneas cost' phenomenon might prevent spread outside that region where there is less immune pressure.

To be honest, I think because the way the immune system works is so complicated, because the virus is new and mutating and not fully understood and because this situation is so unusual (mass vaccination during a pandemic) a case for virtually any scenario could be made to fit the known facts. Time, and further research and studies, will tell.

[Aruntraveller]

The day last month that Johnson announced a Covid Plan B would be activated in England, 161 deaths and 51,342 cases were reported.

Today there were 439 deaths and 94,326 cases were recorded as Plan B is withdrawn.

Distraction for the little people.

[Sriram]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60133618

***********

The number of Americans dying each day from Covid-19 now stands as high as it did during the Delta variant's peak, a grim figure that experts believe will rise.

Statistics show that an average of over 2,000 people are dying from the virus in the US every day, roughly on par with the deaths seen in late September.

According to statistics from Johns Hopkins University, the daily average of confirmed Covid-19 deaths surpassed 2,000 on 21 January and stood at 2,033 on 23 January.

That's just short of where it was at the peak of the surge in Delta variant cases in September.

But there are many more people in hospital now due to the virus than there were back then, due to much higher case loads.

The average daily number of new confirmed cases in the US far surpasses previous waves.

************

What is this....?  Just when we thought it was all getting over....