Coronavirus

[Spud]

'Experts believe the jump in pediatric hospitalizations is likely the result of a confluence of factors. One of them is Omicron’s more contagious nature, and another may be the variant’s newfound preference for airway passages above the lungs, which can be more easily blocked in small children.'

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-omicron-is-putting-more-kids-in-the-hospital/

' children have relatively small nasal passageways that can easily be blocked, so paediatric upper respiratory infections sometimes warrant extra attention compared with those in adults. Roberta DeBiasi, who heads the division of paediatric infectious diseases at the Children’s National Hospital in Washington DC, says that she and her colleagues have noticed an increase in the number of children with ‘COVID croup’, which is an inflammation of the upper airway that produces a characteristic ‘barking’ cough. That adds credence to the theory that Omicron might infect children differently from adults.' '

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00309-x

Thanks for this. Okay, but didn't the Wuhan variant infect the nose and throat of a patient first? So if small nasal passages were the main reason for Omicron why didn't children get upper respiratory infection with the Wuhan strain?

[Spud]

I am a bit confused by the interpretation of data in the vaccine surveillance report.
Out of 1,383 deaths within 28 days of a positive test in over 80 year-olds, 102 were unvaccinated. In the table this is said to be twice the rate (deaths per 100,000) by comparison with the data for vaccinated with 3 doses. In January just under 90% of over 80s were double jabbed. I'm not sure what percentage of them have now been boosted.
If 77% of deaths in >80s were triple jabbed, how does that translate into "twice as likely to die with Covid if unvaccinated than if tripple vaccinated"?
Compare also the case rates: you're a lot more likely to be infected if vaccinated, especially boosted.
This would mean that the boosters are causing the virus to be circulated. That means a higher chance of variants arising, right? So technically we should end vaccinations now.

[Maeght]

Thanks for this. Okay, but didn't the Wuhan variant infect the nose and throat of a patient first? So if small nasal passages were the main reason for Omicron why didn't children get upper respiratory infection with the Wuhan strain?

As I understand it each of the variants infect the upper respiratory track first then can proceed to lower respiratory tract infections. The difference with Omicron, as we've discussed, is that it's preferred cell entry method means it is more of an upper respiratory tract infection than previous variants. I don't really know about the very original Wuhan strain but remember fairly early in the pandemic an Horizon program discussing how the strain in the UK would start as upper respiratory tract then become a lower respiratory tract infection.

[SteveH]

Should it ever be proven that it escaped from a Chinese laboratory, as many people think (I'd normally dismiss that as conspiracy-theoretical gonads, but it won't go away), should China pay compensation to the rest of the world, perhaps in the form of a big donation to the WHO?

[Spud]

As I understand it each of the variants infect the upper respiratory track first then can proceed to lower respiratory tract infections. The difference with Omicron, as we've discussed, is that it's preferred cell entry method means it is more of an upper respiratory tract infection than previous variants. I don't really know about the very original Wuhan strain but remember fairly early in the pandemic an Horizon program discussing how the strain in the UK would start as upper respiratory tract then become a lower respiratory tract infection.

Agreed. Children were not susceptible to infecion at the beginning, but were to Delta, getting mild to moderate diaease. At no point have they been susceptible to severe disease, except in rare cases.
Labouring on with Geert's theory, is it reasonable to assume that their innate immunity protected them at the beginning, but the increased infectious pressure due to the variants now enables the virus to evade it and cause illness.
I guess to verify the theory about suppression of innate abs by acquired abs we would need to locate asymptomatically infected children and then keep testing them for infection and antibodies, for several months.
I wouldn't have realised about there not being documented evidence for it had you not flagged it up.

[Aruntraveller]

Should it ever be proven that it escaped from a Chinese laboratory, as many people think (I'd normally dismiss that as conspiracy-theoretical gonads, but it won't go away), should China pay compensation to the rest of the world, perhaps in the form of a big donation to the WHO?

Good luck with that. About as much chance as the war crimes tribunal being proposed for Putin ever holding him to justice.

[Maeght]

Agreed. Children were not susceptible to infecion at the beginning, but were to Delta, getting mild to moderate diaease. At no point have they been susceptible to severe disease, except in rare cases.
Labouring on with Geert's theory, is it reasonable to assume that their innate immunity protected them at the beginning, but the increased infectious pressure due to the variants now enables the virus to evade it and cause illness.
I guess to verify the theory about suppression of innate abs by acquired abs we would need to locate asymptomatically infected children and then keep testing them for infection and antibodies, for several months.
I wouldn't have realised about there not being documented evidence for it had you not flagged it up.

Not sure we can assume that in the absence of any actual evidence that the innate immune system in children was able to deal with infections from the earlier variants. We don't actually know that children weren't susceptible to infection at the beginning though do we as most wouldn't have been tested. Symptoms with Omicron are different in children it seems but we know it is more of an upper respiratory tract infection than the earlier variants so that could be why on its own. No need to try to get things to fit into his theory without there being evidence for it.

Yes, there would need to be a proper study about the effect of acquired antibodies on the innate immune system. I have tried to look into how the natural (innate) antibodies actually operate and not really found anything. We know acquired antibodies bind to the spike proteins but do the natural ones do the same do you know?

My impression is that you have too much faith in the innate immune system, based on what GVB has said but without the actual evidence to back it up. GVB may have that evidence, and he may be right, but I haven't seen it.

[Aruntraveller]

I am repeating myself frequently I know, but it ain't over:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/06/covid-linked-33-fold-increase-risk-pulmonary-embolism-dvt

[Aruntraveller]

And more learning to live with it:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-61023908

It all goes so well when you can just ignore a problem.

[Maeght]

I am repeating myself frequently I know, but it ain't over:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/06/covid-linked-33-fold-increase-risk-pulmonary-embolism-dvt

It certainly isn't, I agree.

[Maeght]

I am a bit confused by the interpretation of data in the vaccine surveillance report.
Out of 1,383 deaths within 28 days of a positive test in over 80 year-olds, 102 were unvaccinated. In the table this is said to be twice the rate (deaths per 100,000) by comparison with the data for vaccinated with 3 doses. In January just under 90% of over 80s were double jabbed. I'm not sure what percentage of them have now been boosted.
If 77% of deaths in >80s were triple jabbed, how does that translate into "twice as likely to die with Covid if unvaccinated than if tripple vaccinated"?
Compare also the case rates: you're a lot more likely to be infected if vaccinated, especially boosted.
This would mean that the boosters are causing the virus to be circulated. That means a higher chance of variants arising, right? So technically we should end vaccinations now.

the footnote to the table says

'In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and
deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective.
This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may
also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19.'

[Spud]

the footnote to the table says

'In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and
deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective.
This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may
also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19.'

That doesn't tell us how they arrive at a specific rate of 85 and 42 deaths per 100,000 ie twice as many unvaxed as triple vaxed (over 80 years old). Factoring in that 10% are unvaxed, it should be roughly equal.

[Spud]

Not sure we can assume that in the absence of any actual evidence that the innate immune system in children was able to deal with infections from the earlier variants. We don't actually know that children weren't susceptible to infection at the beginning though do we as most wouldn't have been tested. Symptoms with Omicron are different in children it seems but we know it is more of an upper respiratory tract infection than the earlier variants so that could be why on its own. No need to try to get things to fit into his theory without there being evidence for it.

Yes, there would need to be a proper study about the effect of acquired antibodies on the innate immune system. I have tried to look into how the natural (innate) antibodies actually operate and not really found anything. We know acquired antibodies bind to the spike proteins but do the natural ones do the same do you know?

My impression is that you have too much faith in the innate immune system, based on what GVB has said but without the actual evidence to back it up. GVB may have that evidence, and he may be right, but I haven't seen it.

The literature I read today agreed that children have  not been as severely affected as adults, ie they have milder symptoms.
One article spoke of a faster interferon response to infection in children.
Why didn't children get severe lung disease when the early variants affected the lungs?
Shall I shelve that argument as evidence for adaptive antibodies outcompeting innate antibodies, then?
If the infection rate in vaccinees is indeed much higher, that could also be because of 'original antigenic sin', which seems likely to involve the innate as well as adaptive immune system?

[Maeght]

The literature I read today agreed that children have  not been as severely affected as adults, ie they have milder symptoms.
One article spoke of a faster interferon response to infection in children.
Why didn't children get severe lung disease when the early variants affected the lungs?
Shall I shelve that argument as evidence for adaptive antibodies outcompeting innate antibodies, then?
If the infection rate in vaccinees is indeed much higher, that could also be because of 'original antigenic sin', which seems likely to involve the innate as well as adaptive immune system?

Children's innate immune system is certainly different than that of adults, and many of the symptoms experienced with infection by SARS-CoV-2 are as a result of the innate immune response. For example, it seems 'they do not develop the very aggressive immune response known as a cytokine storm that adults form when they get the virus. It is that intense reaction to the virus that helps perpetuate damage in the lungs and other organ systems, often irreversibly harming adult patients.'  There is also the idea that children are exposed to so many viruses that they carry many antibodies which can confirm some cross immunity, also that they may get some anti-bodies from their mothers. https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/covid19-why-are-children-less-affected/ Further studies into this are needed and we don't know for sure but they could explain what is observed.

The 'argument' for adaptive antibodies outcompeting innate antibodies shouldn't be shelved but there does need to be supporting evidence for that and I haven't seen any presented - only an inference from incomplete observations. As I said, GVB may be right but he may not - more studies are needed and we don't know. The idea shouldn't be presented as a fact and used as a basis for the arguments when it is just one possible mechanism and one for which there doesn't seem to be much evidence unless that evidence is there but not being seen or presented - actual direct evidence rather than inferred.

People who are much better at interpreting data than I am don't draw the conclusion that the infection rate is much higher in those who have been vaccinated - people such as Paul Mainwood and  John Roberts on twitter (worth a look if you can). No official statements have concluded this. No one is reporting this that I have seen. Some people are claiming this but their claims have ben addressed by people such as those I mentioned as being due to a misunderstanding of the data. I don't feel able to comment directly but see if you can find stuff by them which may be of interest.

[Spud]

"In this study, we developed a multiplexed glycan microarray assay and applied it to evaluate how different isotypes of anti-glycan antibodies (IgA, IgG, and IgM) compete for printed glycan antigens. While IgG and IgA antibodies typically outcompete IgM for peptide or protein antigens, we found that IgM outcompete IgG and IgA for many glycan antigens."
Competition between serum IgG, IgM, and IgA anti-glycan antibodies
Might have to look up glycan versus protein antigens.
Note, most innate antibodies are IgM.

[Spud]

I have tried to look into how the natural (innate) antibodies actually operate and not really found anything. We know acquired antibodies bind to the spike proteins but do the natural ones do the same do you know?

From Wikipedia: "IgM in normal serum is often found to bind to specific antigens, even in the absence of prior immunization.[49] For this reason IgM has sometimes been called a "natural antibody"."

[Maeght]

"In this study, we developed a multiplexed glycan microarray assay and applied it to evaluate how different isotypes of anti-glycan antibodies (IgA, IgG, and IgM) compete for printed glycan antigens. While IgG and IgA antibodies typically outcompete IgM for peptide or protein antigens, we found that IgM outcompete IgG and IgA for many glycan antigens."
Competition between serum IgG, IgM, and IgA anti-glycan antibodies
Might have to look up glycan versus protein antigens.
Note, most innate antibodies are IgM.

Thanks.

Lots to read here. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2018.02754/full

It's getting well beyond my knowledge and am very aware that reading papers doesn't make me an expert so will be careful not to argue from a position of knowledge and understanding which I don't have.

[Spud]

Thanks.

Lots to read here. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2018.02754/full

It's getting well beyond my knowledge and am very aware that reading papers doesn't make me an expert so will be careful not to argue from a position of knowledge and understanding which I don't have.

Me too - gvb's latest thing is a paper predicting increased infectivity and virulence, through 'O-glycosylatuon', which makes a bit more sense having read about glycans and how they coat the virus enabling it to evade antibodies.
Your link is about autoreactivity and self-tolerence, which gvb has said is the big worry for vaccinologiats. Because intervening with the innate immune system can cause it to start to recognise self as foreign - something like that.
What I'm interested in is, if it's true that anyone who is in good health has good innate immunity (a gvb claim) then can we reduce the viral load to a point where the innate system can deal with it without us getting severe or even moderate disease? This is what I said at the begining of the pandemic. Infection prevention measures on top of what was recommended, eg mouthwash, stress reduction, exercise, diet. As gvb says, health can't be commercialised.
Will keep an eye out for more on outcompeting of innate. But yeah, some of the literature is too complex for me as well!

[Sriram]

Just a quick question guys.

Have many of you had your booster shots against covid? I am due for one and have a wedding coming up next month.

Some people are warning against the booster due to blood clots. Even some doctors are not recommending  because the necessity for a booster shot and its effectiveness against various covid variants has not been established.

Any views?

[Udayana]

 
I had a booster last December and am getting another next week .. which will be my 4th covid vaccination jab.

Clotting issues with any of the vaccines used in the UK are extremely rare, less than 1 in 100,000 cases for over 40s - and that is on the first dose, likelihood negligible on boosters.


 

 

[Maeght]

Just a quick question guys.

Have many of you had your booster shots against covid? I am due for one and have a wedding coming up next month.

Some people are warning against the booster due to blood clots. Even some doctors are not recommending  because the necessity for a booster shot and its effectiveness against various covid variants has not been established.

Any views?

What vaccine would or might it be? In UK we have used mRNA vaccines and the studies showed they gave a good boost.

[Sriram]

We have the Astrazeneca vaccine.  It seems to have done well in the Indian population as far as the first two doses are concerned. 

Just wondering about the need for the booster.  I have a wedding coming and was concerned. Its been a year since my second dose.

I think I'll go for it.

Thanks a lot Udayana and Maeght. 

[Enki]

My wife and I have had both boosters with no ill effects whatever(Pfizer and Moderna). Also, because we run dances for older people, most of those have had boosters too, and they are all ok. Actually, having the booster(with the associated covid pass, enabled us to go abroad (at last) for a superb birding(birdwatching) holiday.

[Sriram]

Thanks a lot Enki for that boost... !

[Dicky Underpants]

Just a quick question guys.

Have many of you had your booster shots against covid? I am due for one and have a wedding coming up next month.

Some people are warning against the booster due to blood clots. Even some doctors are not recommending  because the necessity for a booster shot and its effectiveness against various covid variants has not been established.

Any views?

Had two AstraZeneca last year, and then the Pfizer as a booster last November. Had no problems with any of them, and no respiratory troubles apart from a few very mild cold symptoms since. Certainly nothing that could be identified as Covid 19.
A friend who has a weak chest had the same number of vaccinations as me, and did get quite a nasty infection of Covid quite recently, but strangely the chesty symptoms were the first to go. He had lingering ear trouble, sinus trouble and headaches for some time afterwards, though.
It seems that getting the booster gives a degree of extra security, and the risks are extremely rare.