SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

[Dan_F]

If it didn't happen in London after euro 2020 why would it happen now?

I’m not going to argue that it will make a difference, as I have no idea, but there was 60k in a 90k capacity stadium for two games, with stricter rules around masks etc on public transport. I believe that went down to 40k for the Germany game, and less for the group stage games. All in a 90k stadium.

Logic says that 75k in a 75k capacity Old Trafford, for example, would bring bigger risk. Then multiplied by all the full capacity stadiums across the country.

 

[decorativeed]

I’m not going to argue that it will make a difference, as I have no idea, but there was 60k in a 90k capacity stadium for two games with stricter rules around masks etc on public transport. I believe that went down to 40k for the Germany game, and less for the group stage games. All in a 90k stadium.

Logic says that 75k in a 75k capacity Old Trafford, for example, would bring bigger risk. Then multiplied by all the full capacity stadiums across the country.

That's what I was thinking. There's also a lot more space around you at a sold out Wembley than at a sold out Old Trafford, where people are really packed in there.

 

[Salt Bailly]

Anyone know or experienced the following post covid after effects:

A strong smokey taste at the back of the throat when laying down and lingers for a bit when standing up, but then goes away?

Sounds like a textbook case of Shatner's Bassoon.

 

[Rektsanwalt]

Anyone know or experienced the following post covid after effects:

A strong smokey taste at the back of the throat when laying down and lingers for a bit when standing up, but then goes away?

that sounds incredibly weird! I somehow expect some sort of secretion being the cause of this in combination with an affected taste sense? Like, if it stops after standing up, my logic is it simply goes down your throat, while when you're laying down it sort of accumulates around your pharynx.

 

[Wibble]

Nothing you’ve provided there is in any way relevant to the point you’re disagreeing with!

Obviously, prior infection gives you good (but not complete) protection. Nobody would disagree with this. I certainly don’t. However there’s no convincing evidence that prior infection gives a more durable response or better protection against new variants than vaccination. It’s just not possible for that sort of long term comparable data to be available this early in the vaccine roll-out.

The point you seem to keep (deliberately?) ignoring is that obtaining immunisation by infection is considerably more dangerous than immunisation by vaccine. There’s absolutely no doubt about this. The medical community are divided on a few issues relating to covid but this is not one of them.

With all due respect, life is too short to give you fully referenced responses when you repeatedly ignore the main point being made in my posts.

Immunity through infection is always more variable than by vaccination. No reason to suspect that SARS-CoV-2 is any different. And of course you have to be not dead to get immunity from actual infection.

If you get Delta and survive/don't get long covid/permanent damage to your health then just maybe you might get slightly better immunity to that strain (until the vaccines are tweaked in the next couple of months) but a hell of a risk give the variable immunity from infection and the much larger chances of serous harm or dealt. Basically it is an idiotic choice. The stats just don't even come close to adding up.

 

[Wibble]

fair enough

to answer that, I’m referring to the development of the immunesystem after vaccination. Vaccination didn’t start 18 months ago.

No it began in the 1500s.

All the signs are that covid vaccination produce a good and long term (as long term as we can currently assess) response including all 4 types of memory cell. Which is of course exactly what you might reasonably expect. And that is before Pfizer and Modena release new versions of their vaccines tweaked for Delta in the next few months.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6529/eabf4063#:~:text=CONCLUSION,predictive of T cell memory.

If infections was better than vaccination why would we use vaccination for everything else? Perhaps because it has saved so many lives?

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

Not sure how you can continue to do this.

My friend in Florida just yesterday had a 24 y/o die from Covid and another 22 y/o with covid woke up blind, suspected due to encephalitis with possible occipital stroke, work up ongoing.

And here we have this guy arguing infection is fine for young people. Sigh.

Please dont attribute misinformation towards me, thanks! I've never said young people can not catch covid, that would be absolutely silly to say. I've said the majority of young people recover naturally through the antibodies made through the immune system. That does not negate that vaccinations are an important factor to get this virus under control. With in that category of those recovering naturally, there are cases of individuals who still have the post covid symptoms, but statistically they are in the minority.

In our country (The Netherlands), we have as of August 10, an estimated 17.878 deaths. 15.924 are from the age bracket of 70-90+, with the majority of them having underlying health risks and 145 deaths from 50 years and downwards. You will find similar patterns worldwide in regards to these statistics.

Another example for illustration purposes is the United States (statistics as of april 2020). This is outdated data, but the disproportionality in age bracket and with/without underlying conditions has shown to be consistent.

AGE​	Number of Deaths	Share of deaths	With underlying conditions	Without underlying conditions	Unknown if with underlying cond.	Share of deaths of unknown + w/o cond.
0 - 17 years old​	3​	0.04%​	3​	0​	0​	0%​
18 - 44 years old​	309​	4.5%​	244​	25​	40​	1.0%​
45 - 64 years old​	1,581​	23.1%​	1,343​	59​	179​	3.5%​
65 - 74 years old​	1,683​	24.6%​	1,272​	26​	385​	6.0%​
75+ years old​	3,263​	47.7%​	2,289​	27​	947​	14.2%​
TOTAL​	6,839​	100%​	5,151​	137 (2.0%)​	1,551​	24.68%​

(source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/).

Young people do attract covid but as you can see on the graphic for the United States, they account for less then 5% and the majority of them had underlying conditions). The underlying conditions was/is the majority variable in every age bracket. The ratio 'with underlying conditions' vs 'without underlying conditions' are very disproportionate as you can see. This age disproportion will be 'similar' in most of the countries. Therefore, i am not saying some 'controversial' statements, or something new whatsoever. Im merely highlighting the already available information about the disproportional ratio of age in combination with underlying conditions in comparison to age without underlying conditions. Vaccination is key, especially for immune compromised individuals as the stats show. Nothing more and nothing less is said by me.

 

[Stack]

Please dont attribute misinformation towards me, thanks! I've never said young people can not catch covid, that would be absolutely silly to say. I've said the majority of young people recover naturally through the antibodies made through the immune system. That does not negate that vaccinations are an important factor to get this virus under control. With in that category of those recovering naturally, there are cases of individuals who still have the post covid symptoms, but statistically they are in the minority.

In our country (The Netherlands), we have as of August 10, an estimated 17.878 deaths. 15.924 are from the age bracket of 70-90+, with the majority of them having underlying health risks and 145 deaths from 50 years and downwards. You will find similar patterns worldwide in regards to these statistics.

Another example for illustration purposes is the United States (statistics as of april).

AGE​	Number of Deaths	Share of deaths	With underlying conditions	Without underlying conditions	Unknown if with underlying cond.	Share of deaths of unknown + w/o cond.
0 - 17 years old​	3​	0.04%​	3​	0​	0​	0%​
18 - 44 years old​	309​	4.5%​	244​	25​	40​	1.0%​
45 - 64 years old​	1,581​	23.1%​	1,343​	59​	179​	3.5%​
65 - 74 years old​	1,683​	24.6%​	1,272​	26​	385​	6.0%​
75+ years old​	3,263​	47.7%​	2,289​	27​	947​	14.2%​
TOTAL​	6,839​	100%​	5,151​	137 (2.0%)​	1,551​	24.68%​

(source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/).

Young people do attract covid but as you can see on the graphic for the United States, they account for less then 5% and the majority of them had underlying conditions). The underlying conditions was/is the majority variable in every age bracket. The ratio 'with underlying conditions' vs 'without underlying conditions' are very disproportionate as you can see. This age disproportion will be 'similar' in most of the countries. Therefore, i am not saying some 'controversial' statements, or something new whatsoever. Im merely highlighting the already available information about the disproportional ratio of age in combination with underlying conditions in comparison to age without underlying conditions. Vaccination is key, especially for immune compromised individuals as the stats show. Nothing more and nothing less is said by me.

Are you able to break down the Netherlands stats to show the Delta variants impact?

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

No it began in the 1500s.

All the signs are that covid vaccination produce a good and long term (as long term as we can currently assess) response including all 4 types of memory cell. Which is of course exactly what you might reasonably expect. And that is before Pfizer and Modena release new versions of their vaccines tweaked for Delta in the next few months.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6529/eabf4063#:~:text=CONCLUSION,predictive of T cell memory.

If infections was better than vaccination why would we use vaccination for everything else? Perhaps because it has saved so many lives?

I've never said infections were better then vaccination. I was providing sources to say there are evidences to suggest that immunity through infection can induce long- term immunity in most individuals. As an example (NATURE), stated:

'' The good news is that the evidence thus far predicts that infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces long-term immunity in most individuals. This provides a welcome positive note as we wait for further data on memory responses to vaccination. ''

The same article stated the following about immunity through vaccination:

' Finally, Wang and colleagues show that immunity can be boosted even further in convalescent individuals by vaccinating them after a year. This resulted in the generation of more plasma cells, together with an increase in the level of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that was up to 50 times greater than before vaccination.''

It's fantastic news if vaccines lead up to 50 times more antibodies after vaccination, the higher the antibodies the higher the protection. The specifics are still being researched, but that is logical, considering how science works and the more data will become available.

full article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01557-z

Hope that clears it up!

 

[berbatrick]

@LazyRed-Ninja your US death stats in post #59,909 might either be from april last year or are off by a factor of 100.


either way, do you have anything to add about this?

death is not the only serious adverse outcome.
why are you focusing on 20-24 alone, they don't live on a separate island? hence, won't encouraging the rapid spread of the virus among one subpopulation also lead to vastly increased transmission among those younger and older than them, also, increased chance of mutation (and of course more death and long-term health issues).

Based on quick maths using 18-29 numbers from these sources (1 2, 2500 dead, 124633 admitted to hospital), it seems for every young dead, there are 50 young in hospitals, which means you are aspiring to 21,000 people in hospitals (not to mention others, more susceptible, getting it off them), which might be an "overwhelming significant risk". uk hospitalisation peak was 3500, your hope doesn't seem ideal!

e - updated a wrong link (1)

 

[Dante]

Anyone know or experienced the following post covid after effects:

A strong smokey taste at the back of the throat when laying down and lingers for a bit when standing up, but then goes away?

Like a fine single malt whisky.

 

[Wibble]

I've never said infections were better then vaccination. I was providing sources to say there are evidences to suggest that immunity through infection can induce long- term immunity in most individuals. As an example (NATURE), stated:

'' The good news is that the evidence thus far predicts that infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces long-term immunity in most individuals. This provides a welcome positive note as we wait for further data on memory responses to vaccination. ''

The same article stated the following about immunity through vaccination:

' Finally, Wang and colleagues show that immunity can be boosted even further in convalescent individuals by vaccinating them after a year. This resulted in the generation of more plasma cells, together with an increase in the level of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that was up to 50 times greater than before vaccination.''

It's fantastic news if vaccines lead up to 50 times more antibodies after vaccination, the higher the antibodies the higher the protection. The specifics are still being researched, but that is logical, considering how science works and the more data will become available.

full article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01557-z

Hope that clears it up!

Why would anyone be surprised that infection can produced a decent immune response? Usually more variable but still decent. We designed vaccines to produce the same or better immune response without actually being infected and suffering the consequences. Even if infection produced a slightly better immune response why would millions of deaths be worth that? It makes zero sense.

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

@LazyRed-Ninja your US death stats in post #59,909 might either be from april last year or are off by a factor of 100.


either way, do you have anything to add about this?

The point of the graphic was to show the disproportional ratio in the age bracket with and without underlying conditions, in the overall reported death statistics.

In regards to your point, can you add a link for that quote, for reading material.

In regards to your question of why i focussed on the age bracket of age 20-24 is as followed. I responded to this specific sentence of another conversation i had > ' As you can see from the graph you chance of being killed outright by covid is about 1 in 10000 from the age of about 20'

It would be appreciated if you could share the link, ill respond to your post after reading it.

 

[berbatrick]

the hyperlinks are in 1 and 2 in the original post, copied here:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#new-hospital-admissions

(using 18-29 data)

 

[Wibble]

The point of the graphic was to show the disproportional ratio in the age bracket with and without underlying conditions, in the overall reported death statistics.

In regards to your point, can you add a link for that quote, for reading material.

In regards to your question of why i focussed on the age bracket of age 20-24 is as followed. I responded to this specific sentence of another conversation i had > ' As you can see from the graph you chance of being killed outright by covid is about 1 in 10000 from the age of about 20'

It would be appreciated if you could share the link, ill respond to your post after reading it.

It is idiotic to try to justify not vaccinating everyone based on a single age group as society is not a single age group. And deaths are far from the only consequence with long covid, the collapse of heath services and having to hear covidiots daily but on the plus side there fewer annoying birthdays/wedding anniversaries we have to attend for grandparents.

 

[Wibble]

Question for the clever folk in this thread....

My 9 year old daughter has just tested positive, her sister (11) and my wife and I (in our 40s) are still negative. But her best friend has also tested positive and that family were due to go on holiday tomorrow, obviously she can not go but the others have all tested negative and have asked us if their positive daughter can come and stay with us while they go on holiday! Are we increasing our risk at all by having 2 rather than 1 positive person in the house? we are both double vaccinated.

Kinell.

2 positive people in your house raises the risk of infection for everyone else, vaccinated or not. The girl's family are already at an increased risk of infection and they shouldn't be holidaying at all when they risk spreading infection (again irrespective of vaccination status). Leaving a sick kid with someone else so you can holiday is probably the least annoying factor in that request.

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

Why would anyone be surprised that infection can produced a decent immune response? Usually more variable but still decent. We designed vaccines to produce the same or better immune response without actually being infected and suffering the consequences. Even if infection produced a slightly better immune response why would millions of deaths be worth that? It makes zero sense.

Logic would dictate that it would be absolute foolish for anyone to deny the impact science and vaccines have had on life expectancy and health in general. Thus anybody debating that would by default make a fool of himself.

My argument was about the disproportional ratio of the statistical variables of age with underlying health conditions vs age without underlying health conditions. The immune compromised people have suffered the most deaths as a consequence of this virus. The not immune compromised represent the overwhelming minority statistically, but within this group there are categories as well, ranging from no symptoms, to mild to severe. Within this category there is another differentiation to be made, in terms of those who experience post covid symptoms.

The dis proportionality was my point, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

It is idiotic to try to justify not vaccinating everyone based on a single age group as society is not a single age group. And deaths are far from the only consequence with long covid, the collapse of heath services and having to hear covidiots daily but on the plus side there fewer annoying birthdays/wedding anniversaries we have to attend for grandparents.

Im not trying to justify not vaccinating based on a single age group. I've said that statistically the risk groups had more importance, in regards to the lower risk. This does not negate that the lower risk group can still vaccinate, im not debating that. What i do say is that i believe in right of choice.

hope that clears it up!

 

[Wibble]

Logic would dictate that it would be absolute foolish for anyone to deny the impact science and vaccines have had on life expectancy and health in general. Thus anybody debating that would by default make a fool of himself.

My argument was about the disproportional ratio of the statistical variables of age with underlying health conditions vs age without underlying health conditions. The immune compromised people have suffered the most deaths as a consequence of this virus. The not immune compromised represent the overwhelming minority statistically, but within this group there are categories as well, ranging from no symptoms, to mild to severe. Within this category there is another differentiation to be made, in terms of those who experience post covid symptoms.

The dis proportionality was my point, nothing more and nothing less.

Why bother unless it informs who you vaccinate first?

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

Why bother unless it informs who you vaccinate first?

I can only speak from experience. I dont know how the UK implemented their strategy. In our country they sent the vaccination invitations starting from the oldest age brackets all the way down to the younger ones. The idea behind that was that the higher risk groups had more importance thus inviting them first for vaccinations. From that perspective i'd say it was crucial to have that data available of who to target first.

 

[mav_9me]

Logic would dictate that it would be absolute foolish for anyone to deny the impact science and vaccines have had on life expectancy and health in general. Thus anybody debating that would by default make a fool of himself.

My argument was about the disproportional ratio of the statistical variables of age with underlying health conditions vs age without underlying health conditions. The immune compromised people have suffered the most deaths as a consequence of this virus. The not immune compromised represent the overwhelming minority statistically, but within this group there are categories as well, ranging from no symptoms, to mild to severe. Within this category there is another differentiation to be made, in terms of those who experience post covid symptoms.

The dis proportionality was my point, nothing more and nothing less.

I am not so sure immune compromised have suffered most deaths. My own personal experience has been that the immune compromised have done better because they don't mount the aggressive cytokine release syndrome. I don't have data on that though.

People who have done worse are people with existing medical issues such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension etc.

 

[Wibble]

I can only speak from experience. I dont know how the UK implemented their strategy. In our country they sent the vaccination invitations starting from the oldest age brackets all the way down to the younger ones. The idea behind that was that the higher risk groups had more importance thus inviting them first for vaccinations. From that perspective i'd say it was crucial to have that data available of who to target first.

All data isn't equal and you need to interpret it. You immunise the most at risk of adverse consequences first which we are doing or has been done and then you immunise the groups that are spreading it the most, which is the under 30's and at risk employment groups. None of this really needs data confirming that infection also creates immunity as we know this already. Unless you have a purely scientific academic interest, and that doesn't seem to be the case, it is only anti-vaxxers who seem to obsess about such data.

 

[Wibble]

I am not so sure immune compromised have suffered most deaths. My own personal experience has been that the immune compromised have done better because they don't mount the aggressive cytokine release syndrome. I don't have data on that though.

People who have done worse are people with existing medical issues such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension etc.

I believe the elderly have partly suffered so much partly because they produce a worse immune response on average, so maybe he is including all elderly people as immune compromised?

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

I am not so sure immune compromised have suffered most deaths. My own personal experience has been that the immune compromised have done better because they don't mount the aggressive cytokine release syndrome. I don't have data on that though.

People who have done worse are people with existing medical issues such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension etc.

I have to correct myself. I used the term compromised immunity as a synonym for underlying health conditions, which is not entirely correct. I think the correct word to use is comorbidities.

In regards to your most recent post about all data is not equal I can say that I agree and disagree. Generalizations within the study of data can be made. The disproportionality in age and with/without underlying conditions is one of them.


The debate of vax vs anti vax is also not new. There was the vaccination Act of 1853 which made vaccination mandatory for enfants and that law was extended in 1867 to children up until 14 years. You had the anti vaccination league demonstrating against it. In the end science prevails and that is not even up for debate.

i actually do have a science intrest to such an extent that Im planning to go for my master of Interdisciplinair social science next year. Therefore I have to disagree with your statement that I don’t have a scientific intrest. English is not my mother language hence why I don’t post often on these type of threads.

Obsession over data could be a good things, it’s wether an individual manages to objectively research data, with certain principles and criteria to establish logical conclusions.

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

I believe the elderly have partly suffered so much partly because they produce a worse immune response on average, so maybe he is including all elderly people as immune compromised?

I did, but there are slight differences. You can have an impaired immune system through smoking and have less chances of getting serious ill then somebody with an impaired immune system through combordities (2 or more underlying health conditions).

you can argue that having an health condition makes you immune compromised by default, but this differs per individual.

 

[Wibble]

I did, but there are slight differences. You can have an impaired immune system through smoking and have less chances of getting serious ill then somebody with an impaired immune system through combordities (2 or more underlying health conditions).

you can argue that having an health condition makes you immune compromised by default, but this differs per individual.

But so what? It doesn't alter the fact that you need to vaccinate everyone, with the most vulnerable first, the biggest spreader next then everyone else - as close to 100% as is possible.

 

[Stack]

Low risk groups need to be vaccinated too simply because they can be among those who unwittingly allow the virus to spread to high risk groups who havent vaccinated or because of medical reasons cant vaccinate. The idea that low risk groups dont need to vaccinate is simply foolish.

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

Low risk groups need to be vaccinated too simply because they can be among those who unwittingly allow the virus to spread to high risk groups who havent vaccinated or because of medical reasons cant vaccinate. The idea that low risk groups dont need to vaccinate is simply foolish.

 

[Wibble]

So what? What is your point? What has that got to do with the need to vaccinate as close to 100% of the population.

We know vaccines aren't sterilising, like most vaccines, but we also know they hugely reduce transmission, symptoms, hospitalisations and deaths.

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

So what? What is your point? What has that got to do with the need to vaccinate as close to 100% of the population.

We know vaccines aren't sterilising, like most vaccines, but we also know they hugely reduce transmission, symptoms, hospitalisations and deaths.

Have you read the entire article related to this video?

full article: https://www.politico.eu/article/herd-immunity-not-a-possibility-with-delta-variant/

what does the article state in summary?

for convenience sake let me quote from a recent article on Bloomberg.

‘Will we get to herd immunity? No, very unlikely, by definition,” said Greg Poland, director of the Vaccine Research Group at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Even a vaccination rate of as high as 95% wouldn’t achieve it, he said. “It is a neck and neck race between the development of ever more highly transmissible variants which develop the capacity to evade immunity, and immunization rates.”

Full article:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ay-never-reach-herd-immunity-against-covid-19

 

[Wibble]

Have you read the entire article related to this video?

full article: https://www.politico.eu/article/herd-immunity-not-a-possibility-with-delta-variant/

what does the article state in summary?

He said vaccinating won't TOTALLY prevent adults getting infected. Today's Captain Obvious award goes to...

We know that the vaccines aren't sterilising, I may have mentioned this before, but that doesn't mean we don't need to vaccinate as close to 100% of the population as possible, rather the opposite as if it were a sterilising vaccine we could get away with circa 80% to reach HIT. Once the safety trials are ack for kids we should be aiming to vaccinate everyone over 5 years of age (or whatever minimum age the trials cover) and then probably a third shot of the Delta tweaked vaccines. We may still not reach HIT but even if we don't the massive reduction in transmission, serious illness and hospitalisations will be well worth it.

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

He said vaccinating won't TOTALLY prevent adults getting infected. Today's Captain Obvious award goes to...

We know that the vaccines aren't sterilising, I may have mentioned this before, but that doesn't mean we don't need to vaccinate as close to 100% of the population as possible, rather the opposite as if it were a sterilising vaccine we could get away with circa 80% to reach HIT. Once the safety trials are ack for kids we should be aiming to vaccinate everyone over 5 years of age (or whatever minimum age the trials cover) and then probably a third shot of the Delta tweaked vaccines. We may still not reach HIT but even if we don't the massive reduction in transmission, serious illness and hospitalisations will be well worth it.

that is part of what the article states. The main point is highlighted as :

‘We are in a situation with this current variant where herd immunity is not a possibility because it still infects vaccinated individuals,” he said. “I suspect that what the virus will throw up next is a variant which is perhaps even better at transmitting in vaccinated populations. So that’s an even more of a reason not to be making a vaccine program around herd immunity.”
(End quote)


We are not debating against the use of vaccination here. One of the main points in the article is that herd immunity should not be the soil focus of governments in terms of the vaccine program. The need for boosters at this particular time also doesn’t seem warrented for now.

‘The time we would need to boost is if we see evidence that there was an increase in hospitalisation – or the next stage after that, which would be people dying – amongst those who are vaccinated. And that is not something we are seeing at the moment,” he said.
(End quote)

appreciate the conversation! , but I’d like to respectfully participate in in the award show you mentioned with mr Captain Obvious and submit you as Mr ‘so what’ (just some little banter)

 

[The Boy]

Kinell.

2 positive people in your house raises the risk of infection for everyone else, vaccinated or not. The girl's family are already at an increased risk of infection and they shouldn't be holidaying at all when they risk spreading infection (again irrespective of vaccination status). Leaving a sick kid with someone else so you can holiday is probably the least annoying factor in that request.

I'm feeling quite bad about this and am glad that they are not on the forum.

I have answered this a couple of times but it is only fair I do it again in a mega thread like this, where it is easily missed.

Without meaning to I have made this out to be worse than it is. Their daughter though she tested positive is completely asymptomatic so though she has Covid, she is not feeling unwell or sick in anyway. She and my daughter are very close and have regularly stayed at each others houses, she feels like a member of our family and spends lots of time here so it's not like she would be dumped with strangers!

Finally they are a sensible and kind couple, rather than the callous fecks I may have represented them as and quickly decided to cancel their holiday anyway and isolate, so it was just a thought rather than an action.

This is one of those moments that has made me realise how easy it is to judge people on the internet and because a poster (me) hasn't given full context, it sounds alot worse than it is, we all say and think silly things, but rarely do them.

So @Santos J @jojojo @The Cat @Pogue Mahone @fergies coat @golden_blunder @McGrathsipan @Carolina Red and others you bunch of judgmental @#%&s

In our house both of my daughters have now tested positive, my elder daughter (11) has had a particularly nasty ride, continually throwing up every 30-60 minutes for 14 hours before it finally began to calm down yesterday.

Thankfully my wife and I are still negative, which I imagine is down to our vaccines (AZ) and hopefully it remains like that.

 

[fishfingers15]

Struggling to understand what lazyred ninja is arguing or trying to research more?

Very clearly, getting infected with Covid19 and recovering gives your body the ability to generate anti bodies (at least for an year or so)

But getting vaccinations is significantly better compared to this method (logistically, you can plan and get the vaccine in your terms and making sure you don't spread it to unwitting population as there is definitely a time period where you are positive but symptoms don't show up. This doesn't even take into account the need for hospitalization, self isolation etc)

Age brackets and other factors don't enter into this decision and has no weightage at all. What do you need to research further on this to decide?

 

[Stack]

Im not talking about herd immunity, Im talking about limiting the spread where possible. Its really quite simple.

 

[Wibble]

that is part of what the article states. The main point is highlighted as :

‘We are in a situation with this current variant where herd immunity is not a possibility because it still infects vaccinated individuals,” he said. “I suspect that what the virus will throw up next is a variant which is perhaps even better at transmitting in vaccinated populations. So that’s an even more of a reason not to be making a vaccine program around herd immunity.”
(End quote)

Why obsess on variants. The more you vaccinate the fewer infections occur, transmissibility reduces, severity of disease reduces as do hospitalisations. Variants are essentially a statistical function of mass infection (not vaccination) therefore the faster we vaccinate the less the chance of new variants of concern arising. It doesn't mean we won't get another but it is the best plan to minimise the chance. It has also been shown that vaccination actively reduces the chance of variants arising over and above the reduction die to fewer infections. The article is in this thread somewhere. It is irrelevant if you formally aim for HIt as the best course of action is to vaccinate as many people as possible as fast as possible. If you happened to reach HOT then that is merely a bonus.

We are not debating against the use of vaccination here. One of the main points in the article is that herd immunity should not be the soil focus of governments in terms of the vaccine program. The need for boosters at this particular time also doesn’t seem warrented for now.

‘The time we would need to boost is if we see evidence that there was an increase in hospitalisation – or the next stage after that, which would be people dying – amongst those who are vaccinated. And that is not something we are seeing at the moment,” he said.
(End quote)

If there is no argument against mass vaccination why do you need to worry if HIT is reached or not? Immunise everyone and we may or may not reach HIT. Whatever the outcome it will be much better than not immunising everyone. The time to boost is when we find immunity is waning. The time to give a third shot is when we have a Delta tweaked vaccine to improve immunity against Delta. They are not the same thing.

appreciate the conversation! , but I’d like to respectfully participate in in the award show you mentioned with mr Captain Obvious and submit you as Mr ‘so what’ (just some little banter)

Maximising vaccination is worth perusing irrespective of reaching HIT. In any case the higher HIT is the greater the necessity to vaccinate everyone including kids. The Captain Obvious tag was aimed at the author who summarises by stating the bleeding obvious again and again to back up a non-sequitur.

 

[Wibble]

Im not talking about herd immunity, Im talking about limiting the spread where possible. Its really quite simple.

HIT may not be possible so quit vaccinating doesn't seem a sensible idea to me.

 

[Wibble]

Struggling to understand what lazyred ninja is arguing or trying to research more?

Very clearly, getting infected with Covid19 and recovering gives your body the ability to generate anti bodies (at least for an year or so)

But getting vaccinations is significantly better compared to this method (logistically, you can plan and get the vaccine in your terms and making sure you don't spread it to unwitting population as there is definitely a time period where you are positive but symptoms don't show up. This doesn't even take into account the need for hospitalization, self isolation etc)

Age brackets and other factors don't enter into this decision and has no weightage at all. What do you need to research further on this to decide?

Hard to say for sure as he isn't saying outright but it sounds like he is looking for a reason to not immunise younger people.

 

[Stack]

HIT may not be possible so quit vaccinating doesn't seem a sensible idea to me.

And not vaccinating low risk groups makes no sense either. Combine every tool we have at every step gives us all a faster path to a new normality thats comfortable.

 

[fishfingers15]

Hard to say for sure as he isn't saying outright but it sounds like he is looking for a reason to not immunise younger people.

IMHO, We would have seen zombies or men getting converted to woman by now if he has any doubts