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

This is very good news, right?



Probably being stupid here but I don’t understand how points 2 and 4 can be true at the same time. How can you be 15-20% less likely to require hospitalisation from Omicron compared to Delta, and also be at a similar risk of hospitalisation for both Omicron and Delta?

Could anyone explain what I’m missing? Are they saying that, given vaccination, this 15-20% decrease is not statistically significant enough and should be considered “similar risk”?
 
Probably being stupid here but I don’t understand how points 2 and 4 can be true at the same time. How can you be 15-20% less likely to require hospitalisation from Omicron compared to Delta, and also be at a similar risk of hospitalisation for both Omicron and Delta?

Could anyone explain what I’m missing? Are they saying that, given vaccination, this 15-20% decrease is not statistically significant enough and should be considered “similar risk”?

Point 2 refers to all people with infection, point 4 refers to people to who have been infected and have had two doses.
 
Last edited:
To me it opens up the conversation for an uncomfortable question for many...would it be better for those who were <40 and double-jabbed to have gotten a minor infection from Omicron, rather than getting their booster?

There was already evidence that "super-immunity" provided a better mix of long and short-term protection than vaccines alone, the risk of hospitalisation for that age group was already very, very low with Delta, and there was good reason to believe Omicron was going to be even milder when the boosters were ramped up for that age group. Now the evidence is just strengthening for all three.

Even just at a societal level, it might be the case that this time next year population immunity would have been stronger, and therefore a lower risk to the NHS, if more young people got that mild infection now instead of evading that mild infection through the short-term antibody boost.

Maybe boosted immunity will last longer than expected, or maybe the virus will only get milder from here on...but if not, I personally think we could look back on it as a mistake from being overly cautious and short-termist.

One thing to note is the third shot is to maintain a high level of antibodies rather than because immunity has waned. Antibodies usually decline this was as memory cells take over the job. In this case it isn't that the memory cells have stopped working well, just that we don't want the increased pressure on the health system due to the lag between infection and memory cells kicking in to produce antibodies. This is especially the case with Omicron as it seems that active antibodies are the key to reducing the severity of disease, more so than previous variants. So trading the slight benefit of vaccine plus infection vs vaccine plus booster by restricting booster availability would further pressure the health service and increase severe disease.
 
This is very good news, right?


Just read the IC report, the Scotland report and the SA ones, and I admit I'm struggling to interpret the summary of the IC document. The numbers in their summary tables look better to me than they do to them and as yet I don't quite understand why!

At any rate, the reports from the UK, Denmark and SA continue to be reassuring. If that holds true, then it's not going to be nice as case rates rise, but it might not be as scary (for the UK and similar high immunity countries) as it looked when we first saw the infection rate reports. Fingers crossed, eh.
 
Vaccines no longer suppress transmission to any great degree.

That's a big call. Given that airborne viruses are almost universally spread far more by highly symptomatic people I'd be very suprised if the suppression of severe disease didn't have a major correlation with reduced transmission.
 
And the FT save me from having to ponder further by summarising the reports for me

 
Australian cases spiked to 8k yesterday. Mainly in NSW which is likely due to us opening up far too fast. QR check in codes now to be reintroduced a week after they were removed but our idiots in charge (NSW and Federally) are not going to bring mask wearing indoors back again against the medical advice. I can't wait for the next election to punish these imbeciles.
 
NSW considering charging the unvaccinated for covid hospital admission https://www.theguardian.com/austral...charging-unvaccinated-patients-for-covid-care

Now for someone who has never liked the idea of Covid passports in order to do normal things in the country you live, and has been annoyed at how they’ve been pushed despite no evidence they actually make a difference; this is actually something I could get behind.
It’d mean those not wanting to be vaccinated could live as normal, but they’d seriously have to put their money where their mouth is if they were gonna face a hefty hospital bill should they require care.
 
Now for someone who has never liked the idea of Covid passports in order to do normal things in the country you live, and has been annoyed at how they’ve been pushed despite no evidence they actually make a difference; this is actually something I could get behind.
It’d mean those not wanting to be vaccinated could live as normal, but they’d seriously have to put their money where their mouth is if they were gonna face a hefty hospital bill should they require care.

Horrible precedent to set where does it end, fat people, smokers, drinkers.
 
So they should charge smokers and anyone who drinks too much? Maybe anyone who does drugs as well.

Now for someone who has never liked the idea of Covid passports in order to do normal things in the country you live, and has been annoyed at how they’ve been pushed despite no evidence they actually make a difference; this is actually something I could get behind.
It’d mean those not wanting to be vaccinated could live as normal, but they’d seriously have to put their money where their mouth is if they were gonna face a hefty hospital bill should they require care.
 
That's a big call. Given that airborne viruses are almost universally spread far more by highly symptomatic people I'd be very suprised if the suppression of severe disease didn't have a major correlation with reduced transmission.

Severe disease means someone who needs to be admitted to hospital (usually for oxygen) You can cough your guts up for a week and still be considered mild disease. And let’s not forget that someone so sick they need oxygen is less likely to infect a load of people than some idiot with mild symptoms who goes into work/the pub throughout their illness.
 
How they got their addiction?

There’s a can of worms.

Personally I don’t think suffering from something as horrendous as addiction and often inheriting that trait is quite the same. I think people have every right to not want the vaccine, for whatever reason, and I really can’t get behind the two tiered society the passports can create.
That said, if someone smokes a shit load, they pay a shit tonne of tax for the eventual care they will likely require. I don’t personally see a big moral dilemma from charging someone for expensive hospital treatment that a free vaccine could help prevent.
 
Last edited:
You can’t get vaccinated for that though, and many of those pay through their arses already in taxes for their “care”.
I don’t think it’s quite the same.

Now its been proven the vaccination in its current form has little effect on transmission i don't think this is even a starting point.

Trying to force people or discriminate against people doesn't encourage them to change their mind it just makes them double down on the original bollocks they believe.

Ignoring the very small chance that something goes wrong when they have got the jab is that just seen as collateral when you are forcing people.
 
And the FT save me from having to ponder further by summarising the reports for me



It’s odd the way so many experts (including this guy, who is great) are absolutely determined to caveat the “less virulent” data when the semantics they get hung on don’t really matter. If there was a hypothetical undiscovered island full of people completely naive to covid then sure, let’s dig a little deeper. But all any of us should care about is how virulent it will be in the real world population at risk. Who are a long fecking way from covid naive thanks to vaccines and/or prior infections.

The distinction is really only of academic importance and it feels as though a lot of this is just academics trying to show how clever they are, rather than any kind of legitimate concerns we should worry about. I also think some of it is a determination not to cede any ground to the “bad flu” crowd who will be more and more emboldened by each new piece of positive data. They’re terrible people but they may turn out to be correct about omicron.
 
They still cost the health system more due to higher chances of getting seriously ill and we do tax people who do that such as with smoking, alcohol or sugar tax.

I think taxing for not being vaccinated would be fair and has precedent all over the world.
 
They still cost the health system more due to higher chances of getting seriously ill and we do tax people who do that such as with smoking, alcohol or sugar tax.

I think taxing for not being vaccinated would be fair and has precedent all over the world.

It wouldn't be unfair, but it wouldn't solve much - especially in the US. Try collecting several hundred thousand dollars from redneck and hillbilly "purebloods" after they require hospitalizations. They probably only have $137.64 net worth to begin with.

EDIT: Several hundred thousand dollars
 
Last edited:
Now its been proven the vaccination in its current form has little effect on transmission i don't think this is even a starting point.

Trying to force people or discriminate against people doesn't encourage them to change their mind it just makes them double down on the original bollocks they believe.

Ignoring the very small chance that something goes wrong when they have got the jab is that just seen as collateral when you are forcing people.

I don’t think we should force anyone, hence why I don’t like the vaccine passport.
But if I choose to travel without insurance and something happens to me, well….
 
It wouldn't be unfair, but it wouldn't solve much - especially in the US. Try collecting several thousand dollars from redneck and hillbilly "purebloods" after they require hospitalizations. They probably only have $137.64 net worth to begin with.

My preference would be for a tax rather than for hospitalisation only, it's why we tax cigarettes rather than am individual smoker if they end up in hospital with lung disease. It works as an insurance pool to cover for everyone and makes it more affordable for individuals.

The question would be how to tax, as it's a tax for not doing something rather than actively buying something. That's difficult, agreed but it wouldn't be in the thousands then.
 
I don’t think we should force anyone, hence why I don’t like the vaccine passport.
But if I choose to travel without insurance and something happens to me, well….

I just think its a dangerous game, surely them being on the verge of death or in ICU should be enough to pay for some naïve or foolish view.

I'd like to think if they do make it (possibly with a life debilitating outcome) they would see their own mistakes.
 
Horrible precedent to set where does it end, fat people, smokers, drinkers.

Sadly this is true. I'd also prefer any financial encouragement to be mainly prior to the event if we do go down this road e.g. Medicare levy increase for the unvaccinated (not just covid).
 
Complete and utter horse piss, from start to finish. The clue is a) where it’s published and b) how incredibly badly written it is.

And it being obviously utter bollocks might well make you check a) and notice b).
 
Last edited:
Severe disease means someone who needs to be admitted to hospital (usually for oxygen) You can cough your guts up for a week and still be considered mild disease. And let’s not forget that someone so sick they need oxygen is less likely to infect a load of people than some idiot with mild symptoms who goes into work/the pub throughout their illness.

I should have said symptomatic disease. Despite Omicron being more infection for the vaxxed than Delta I'm fairly sure vaccination on average reduces the symptoms that aid transmission across the board especially if you get a third dose.
 
Last edited:
Possibly interesting anecdotal covid related story even though it has no significant real world implications.

My son was due to start a National Water Polo training camp when a players who was due to attend tested positive. The entire squad then rushed to get tested. 1 other player tested positive and worryingly my son had been training with him while he was infectious. They had significant contact including multiple head to head wrestles in the pool.

All players are double jabbed and my son is triple vaxxed others may be but probably not as he was jabbed early due to being in the US at the time and I have no idea if the 2 infected players had Delta or Omicron.

Somewhat amazingly nobody else tested positive and the 2 infected hadn't played or trained together recently. So this perhaps confirms previous reports that pools aren't friendly to transmission. Perhaps due to the very high humidity and/or the chlorine in that humid air and aided by vaccinations.
 
Last edited:
One thing to note is the third shot is to maintain a high level of antibodies rather than because immunity has waned. Antibodies usually decline this was as memory cells take over the job. In this case it isn't that the memory cells have stopped working well, just that we don't want the increased pressure on the health system due to the lag between infection and memory cells kicking in to produce antibodies. This is especially the case with Omicron as it seems that active antibodies are the key to reducing the severity of disease, more so than previous variants. So trading the slight benefit of vaccine plus infection vs vaccine plus booster by restricting booster availability would further pressure the health service and increase severe disease.that

I'm not sure I follow?

If the memory cells take so long to respond that they allow people to end up in hospital, then they're not really doing their job! That's what they do for most infections we get, year after year...and that's not a criticism of these covid-specific memory cells as such, there just isn't enough of them in this case to perform that role in vaccinated folks with no prior infection.

The evidence available suggests these vaccines aren't particularly effective at creating memory cells, but they're extremely effective at stimulating antibodies. So they're giving us that great first line of defence, better than post-infection, but not so great on the second line.

Those antibody levels do decline significantly in the months following vaccination, and immunity is waning. We've known immunity is waning for a while...

We found a robust antibody response to Spike protein after the second dose. However, the antibody levels declined at 12 weeks and 6 months post-vaccination, indicating a waning of the immune response over time. At 6 months after the second dose, the Spike antibody levels were similar to the levels in persons vaccinated with one dose or in COVID-19 convalescent individuals.

gr1.jpg


Fig. 1Antibody responses in individuals vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty vaccine. S-RBD IgG levels before vaccination (B1D, n=88), after the single (B2D, n=111) and two-dose immunizations (1 week (1wA2D, n=106); 6 weeks (6wA2D, n=89), 12 weeks (12wA2D, n=90), and 6 months (6mA2D; n=84) in vaccinated individuals compared with post-infection levels in patients recovered from COVID-19 (COVID-19, n=97) and pre-COVID-19 negative controls (NC, n=50). The box plot comparisons were performed with the Kruskall-Wallis test and Dunn's multiple testing correction; p-values >0·0001 are reported as exact numbers.

That's evidence from Estonia.

Here's a summation from Israel:

Six months after receipt of the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine, humoral response was substantially decreased, especially among men, among persons 65 years of age or older, and among persons with immunosuppression.

nejmoa2114583_f2.jpeg


Or summarised a different way...

Six months ago, Miles Davenport and his colleagues made a bold prediction. On the basis of published results from vaccine trials and other data sources, they estimated that people immunized against COVID-19 would lose approximately half of their defensive antibodies every 108 days or so. As a result, vaccines that initially offered, say, 90% protection against mild cases of disease might only be 70% effective after 6 or 7 months1.

“It felt a little bit out on a limb at the time,” says Davenport, a computational immunologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. But on the whole, his group’s predictions have come true.

Immunological studies have documented a steady decline of antibody levels among vaccinated individuals2. Long-term follow-up of vaccine trial participants has revealed a growing risk of breakthrough infection3. And health-care records from countries such as Israel, the United Kingdom and elsewhere all show that COVID-19 vaccines are losing their strength, at least when it comes to keeping a lid on transmissible disease.

The decline is consistent and substantial, it's the primary reason why infection levels of delta were spiking all across Europe prior to Omicron, and it's what initially triggered the widespread booster roll-out. We absolutely were getting boosted because of declining immunity.

And the speed of the decline is unusually fast for vaccines...

The researchers said that IgG antibody concentrations decreased at a consistent rate, while the neutralising antibody concentrations fell rapidly for the first three months after the second dose, followed by a slower decrease between three and six months.

They noted that, in comparison with other vaccines, such as those against measles, mumps, and rubella, there was a much more significant and rapid decrease in antibody concentrations after the Pfizer covid-19 vaccine.

At the same time, there's been some evidence that "super-immunity" from the vaccine + infection provide a useful counter-balance to that rapid decline.

The most recent studies suggest that hybrid immunity is, at least partly, due to immune players called memory B cells. The bulk of antibodies made after infection or vaccination come from short-lived cells called plasmablasts, and antibody levels fall when these cells inevitably die off. Once plasmablasts are gone, the main source of antibodies becomes much rarer memory B cells that are triggered by either infection or vaccination.

Some of these long-lived cells make higher-quality antibodies than plasmablasts, says Michel Nussenzweig, an immunologist at the Rockefeller. That’s because they evolve in organs called lymph nodes, gaining mutations that help them to bind more tightly to the spike protein over time. When people who recovered from COVID-19 are re-exposed to SARS-CoV-2’s spike, these cells multiply and churn out more of these highly potent antibodies.

“You get a sniff of antigen, in this case of mRNA vaccine, and those cells just explode,” says Goel. In this way, a first vaccine dose in someone who has previously been infected is doing the same job as a second dose in someone who has never had COVID-19.

Differences between the memory B cells triggered by infection and those triggered by vaccination — as well as the antibodies they make — might also underlie the heightened responses of hybrid immunity. Infection and vaccination expose the spike protein to the immune system in vastly different ways, Nussenzweig says.

In a series of studies3,4,5, Nussenzweig’s team, which includes Hatziioannou and Bieniasz, compared the antibody responses of infected and vaccinated people. Both lead to the establishment of memory B cells that make antibodies that have evolved to become more potent, but the researchers suggest this occurs to a greater extent after infection.

The team isolated hundreds of memory B cells — each making a unique antibody — from people at various time points after infection and vaccination. Natural infection triggered antibodies that continued to grow in potency and their breadth against variants for a year after infection, whereas most of those elicited by vaccination seemed to stop changing in the weeks after a second dose. Memory B cells that evolved after infection were also more likely than those from vaccination to make antibodies that block immune-evading variants such as Beta and Delta.

The evidence is pretty strong that hybrid immunity creates significantly more antibodies, but the booster does a decent job of catching up. The evidence that it creates more and more effective B-cells is less robust but the direction is clear, and the theory is sound. Then you can add in the benefits of the mucosal immune response from infection vs. the vaccine. Simply put, I think we'd be better off if people like me got infected now rather than boosted.

In a sense it's academic as it's a politically unpalatable choice and there's obvious uncertainties. But I don't think it's that silly to think it might've been the better epidemiological choice.
 
Jesus, the pain in my arm from my booster is unbearable. Can barely move it without agony.
 
And the FT save me from having to ponder further by summarising the reports for me



Yep that’s looks like trustworthy analysis thanks! No idea what the telegraph journalist had been smoking.
 
Probably being stupid here but I don’t understand how points 2 and 4 can be true at the same time. How can you be 15-20% less likely to require hospitalisation from Omicron compared to Delta, and also be at a similar risk of hospitalisation for both Omicron and Delta?

Could anyone explain what I’m missing? Are they saying that, given vaccination, this 15-20% decrease is not statistically significant enough and should be considered “similar risk”?
I think it's just badly worded.

Omicron multiplies 70 times faster in the tubing that leads up to the lungs, whereas Delta multiplies 10 times faster in the lungs themselves. You can guess that the latter is usually going to cause more severe disease.

This means that Omicron gives the immune system more of a fighting chance because it spends so much more time targetting parts of the body that cause milder disease. This is what the BBC said about it:

It showed people were 70-80% less likely to need hospital treatment, depending on whether Omicron is compared to previous waves, or other variants currently circulating.
However, it suggested there was no difference in outcomes for the few patients that ended up in hospital with Omicron.
Link

So, Omicron will be milder for most people because it primarily affects the airways. You can compare this to Delta which will be more severe because it primarily affects the lung tissue itself. However, if Omicron can't be countered/treated effectively in time, it will eventually take root in the lung tissue as well. Once it does, it's as bad as Delta.
 
Last edited: