Coronavirus

[Nearly Sane]

Japanese Grand Prix cancelled because of Covid


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/58244344

[Aruntraveller]

Interesting article about how we should deal with coronavirus:


https://theconversation.com/why-i-no-longer-think-we-can-eliminate-covid-public-health-expert-166206

[SteveH]

He's too sexy for the jab. Disappointing - I quite liked RSF.

[Roses]

People who refuse to have the jab are putting their lives in danger.

[Sriram]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-21/science-can-t-keep-up-with-virus-creating-worry-for-vaccinated

********

Vaccinated people appear to be getting the coronavirus at a surprisingly high rate. But exactly how often isn’t clear, nor is it certain how likely they are to spread the virus to others.

Though it is evident vaccination still provides powerful protection against the virus, there’s growing concern that vaccinated people may be more vulnerable to serious illness than previously thought.

There’s a dearth of scientific studies with concrete answers, leaving public policy makers and corporate executives to formulate plans based on fragmented information.

“It’s quite clear that we have more breakthroughs now,” said Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease expert at the University of California, San Francisco. “We all know someone who has had one. But we don’t have great clinical data.”

*********

[Spud]

In this study have they specified the vaccination status of the people who had tested positive for coronavirus? If they want to make the case for vaccination, presumably they must compare people who have been vaccinated and had subsequent thrombocytopenia or thromboembolism, with unvaccinated people who have been infected and had subsequent thrombocytopenia or thromboembolism.

[ProfessorDavey]

In this study have they specified the vaccination status of the people who had tested positive for coronavirus? If they want to make the case for vaccination, presumably they must compare people who have been vaccinated and had subsequent thrombocytopenia or thromboembolism, with unvaccinated people who have been infected and had subsequent thrombocytopenia or thromboembolism.

Not really - the issue that are investigating isn't whether being vaccinated reduced the risk of blood clots associated with covid infection. What they were looking at was comparing increased risk of blood clot due to vaccination vs increased increased risk of blood clot due to covid infection.

Given that one of the (false) arguments put forward by anti vaxxers is an increased risk of blood clots, this research is important as it clear demonstrates a much greater risk of blood clots from infection than from vaccination, which tips the risk/benefit ratio further in favour of vaccination as blood clots seem to be the major (albeit very rare) adverse effect of vaccination. There are, of course, many other major impacts of infection other than blood clots.

So the conclusion is that you are probably less likely to suffer from blood clots if you are vaccinated than if not.

[Roses]

That would appear to be what the research has concluded. The antivaxxer mob are the ones who cause harm to those gullible enough to act on their garbage.

[Spud]

Not really - the issue that are investigating isn't whether being vaccinated reduced the risk of blood clots associated with covid infection. What they were looking at was comparing increased risk of blood clot due to vaccination vs increased increased risk of blood clot due to covid infection.

Given that one of the (false) arguments put forward by anti vaxxers is an increased risk of blood clots, this research is important as it clear demonstrates a much greater risk of blood clots from infection than from vaccination, which tips the risk/benefit ratio further in favour of vaccination as blood clots seem to be the major (albeit very rare) adverse effect of vaccination. There are, of course, many other major impacts of infection other than blood clots.

So the conclusion is that you are probably less likely to suffer from blood clots if you are vaccinated than if not.

You can't conclude this because the study doesn't include any unvaccinated people. What it shows is that the combination of vaccination and infection leads to a much higher risk of clotting.
I found a study that shows a higher risk in unvaccinated, seriously ill covid patients. But for mildly infected covid patients there may be no greater risk of thrombosis than for an uninfected vaccinated person.

[Spud]

That would appear to be what the research has concluded. The antivaxxer mob are the ones who cause harm to those gullible enough to act on their garbage.

I'm not anti-vaccination, and with regard to covid I'm not against vaccination of the vulnerable or people who wish to have it for peace of mind. But the current covid vaccines cannot lead to herd immunity, only an ongoing need for boosters, so I don't agree with putting pressure on people to be jabbed.

[ProfessorDavey]

You can't conclude this because the study doesn't include any unvaccinated people. What it shows is that the combination of vaccination and infection leads to a much higher risk of clotting.
I found a study that shows a higher risk in unvaccinated, seriously ill covid patients. But for mildly infected covid patients there may be no greater risk of thrombosis than for an uninfected vaccinated person.

But again you are looking for a different study. This study is looking at the risk of blood clots from the vaccine or from infection, all other things being equal. Otherwise you have compounding variables.

What it demonstrates is that the risk of blood clots from the infection is greater than from the vaccine, which coupled with the reduction in risk of many other infection associated complication tips the risk/benefit balance further in favour of vaccination. There is already pre-vaccination data indicating that (obviously unvaccinated) people have a greater risk of blood clots following covid infection.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not anti-vaccination, and with regard to covid I'm not against vaccination of the vulnerable or people who wish to have it for peace of mind.

Vaccination is primarily to protect other people, not yourself (assuming you are pretty healthy). That's why refusing to get vaccinated, when in a low risk group, is an inherently selfish attitude.

But the current covid vaccines cannot lead to herd immunity, only an ongoing need for boosters,

Of course they can, in combination with ongoing immunity driven by infection and also boosters against new variants - why is that a problem.

so I don't agree with putting pressure on people to be jabbed.

People can choose, but as I've said above if you are healthy and at low risk refusing to have the jab is an inherently selfish decision. But while I would accept that some people may choose not to have the jab (and potentially be selfish) I don't think that should allow them to participate in 'high risk of infection' activities when they've refused to take an option to lower that risk. So I have no problem with requiring events and even some services and jobs to require people to be vaccinated unless they are unable to do so on health grounds.

[Nearly Sane]

All going swimmingly in Scotland



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58357346

[Spud]

Vaccination is primarily to protect other people, not yourself (assuming you are pretty healthy). That's why refusing to get vaccinated, when in a low risk group, is an inherently selfish attitude.

The statistics for cases, hospitalisations and deaths occurring now compared with pre-vaccination stats suggest that the primary reason one would accept the vaccine would be to reduce the risk of severe disease to oneself.

[Spud]

Of course they can, in combination with ongoing immunity driven by infection and also boosters against new variants - why is that a problem.

The statistics suggest that we are no nearer herd immunity than before the vaccine roll out. I think Trent recently linked to an article about this.

[Spud]

Vaccine-generated memory cells recall antibodies effective against limited epitopes of the S-protein, so they can't be relied on to protect us in the future unless they are elicited through natural infection, which leads to an immunological recognition of a broader range of viral epitopes. Unfortunately the vast amount of S-specific antibodies in the vaccinated population now risks blocking antibodies generated through natural infection, thus preventing herd immunity which relies on the latter to protect against new variants. We might subdue new variants through boosters but not eradicate it.

[Aruntraveller]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/27/delta-covid-variant-doubles-risk-hospitalisation-new-study-finds

I like the last sentence:

“The plans were not updated or changed to reflect the considerably higher risk posed by the Delta variant,” he noted. “And that strikes me as … wishful thinking on behalf of not very clever politicians, frankly.”

Quite.

[ProfessorDavey]

Vaccine-generated memory cells recall antibodies effective against limited epitopes of the S-protein, so they can't be relied on to protect us in the future unless they are elicited through natural infection, which leads to an immunological recognition of a broader range of viral epitopes.

But you can, of course, raise a new or booster vaccine to a different epitome. The reason why the spike protein was chosen is it is fundamental to the virus' ability to infect cells and therefore unlikely to vary markedly without rendering the virus unable to be infectious. So by choosing the spike protein we have a vaccine most likely to be effective against variants that are themselves infectious - and indeed that has proved to be the case, as our current vaccines are effective against all the variants of concern, albeit in some cases a little less effective than against the original variant that was used as a template for vaccine development.

Unfortunately the vast amount of S-specific antibodies in the vaccinated population now risks blocking antibodies generated through natural infection, thus preventing herd immunity which relies on the latter to protect against new variants.

Nope - that is muddled thinking. If I get infected and am vaccinated I will generate natural immunity (and generate antibodies against other epitopes) as well as being able to fight the infection via the acquired immune response to the spike protein conferred by the vaccine. And indeed if there is a variant that presents new epitopes that will generate a new immune response alongside the immune response associated with infection from a previous variant.

[ProfessorDavey]

The statistics suggest that we are no nearer herd immunity than before the vaccine roll out. I think Trent recently linked to an article about this.

Non-sense - we may not have reached herd immunity but we are far, far closer to it now than we were a year ago, through a combination of infection-generated and vaccine-generated immunity. Indeed I think in the UK not far off 90% of people have some level of immunity, demonstrated by the presence of covid antibodies.

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/27/delta-covid-variant-doubles-risk-hospitalisation-new-study-finds

I like the last sentence:

Quite.

You will note that contrary to Spud's naive view the expert opinion, as indicated in the article, is that getting vaccinated is absolutely key to dealing with variants.

Also worth noting that the variants of concern all arose in populations with virtually no vaccine-generated immunity. If Spud's ill-thought out views are correct you'd expect to see variants of concern springing up all over the place in countries with high levels of vaccination. But we don't. That doesn't mean we won't see a variant of concern arising in a high vaccination population, but it is no more likely than in a population with low vaccination rates, indeed rather less likely as the key determinant for generation of a variant of concern is the number of virus replication events, with a proportion of these resulting in a mutation in the viral genome. If we reduce viral replication, via a range of means including vaccination, we will reduce the number of random genomic mutations and therefore reduce the likelihood that one of these is more infectious and/or generates more severe illness.

[Roses]

Spud's views on most topics should not be taken seriously, imo.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spud's views on most topics should not be taken seriously, imo.

Your views on most topics should not be taken seriously, imo.

[Roses]

Your views on most topics should not be taken seriously, imo.

You are talking about yourself as usual.

[SusanDoris]

Spud's views on most topics should not be taken seriously, imo.

I do not expend energy on getting cross or angry and have a fairly confident, equable sort of character, but I try to not read Sppud's comments because I find them so very irritating and annoying.

Spud, this is the real world you're in, not a dream one.

[Nearly Sane]

The end of the suit?


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58374306