COVID-19 (Coronavirus) discussion

tom_e said:
More people are vaccinated than aren't so yes I'd guess they are correct in an absolute numbers sense.
Click to expand...

I thought the figure for hospitalisations was higher for those unvaccinated? But there is also the case that many of the infirm (?) were vaccinated so that would scew figures quite a bit. Most unvaccinated would be either more healthish or just nutters that dont mix with people.
 
Last edited:
sidimmu said:
Dont want to comment further on some of his views, but they are one of these guys "theres thousands of athletes having heart attacks now, because of the vaccine", unsure if any truth to it or not as I dont really listen to anything titled COVID anymore.
Click to expand...

When my daughter was doing Sports Science at Chester Uni around 15 years ago her Lecturer was doing a study in athletes dropping dead from heart attacks which was way before Covid.
The thing is every one gets reported now even if they had a vaccine or not.
 
skipper847 said:
Climate lockdowns next 2024 :p wont go into detail but i think that be next big control and only elites be able to travel just as they did in the covid.
Click to expand...
its funny, as hes just mentioned that too.

Tony Edwards said:
The sad thing is your client sounds like they are probably the type of person claiming misleading death figures due to covid claiming even if you get hit by a bus it is counted as covid related.
Click to expand...
pretty much on the head, wondered if there was actually anything legitimate to confirm?
 
sidimmu said:
Sorry to randomly jump in to this, wondering if true or nonsense.

Just had one of my clients go on a 20 minute rant that there is now confirmed medical evidence that;
"More vaccinated people have died from covid than those unvaccinated."

Has anyone got any proof of this? I've asked him for a reference but dont think im going to get it.
Dont want to comment further on some of his views, but they are one of these guys "theres thousands of athletes having heart attacks now, because of the vaccine", unsure if any truth to it or not as I dont really listen to anything titled COVID anymore.
Click to expand...
Vaccinations in the UK started in mid December '20, iirc. So anyone who died with Covid being a major factor before then, died unvaccinated.

Since December '20, an increasing number of the UK population have had at least one vaccination jab.

In absolute numbers, more UK citizens could have died in the last two years with Covid being a major factor, than those that died in the first approx 9 months.

The problem is that this comparison of absolute numbers is silly. More people have died in car crashes over the last ~50 years wearing seatbelts than not... This does not mean seatbelts are dangerous. ;)
 
ltron said:
Indeed, but the vaccines would have been much more effective at preventing transmission had the virus not mutated so much before we could vaccinate everyone. It was to the point where the rate of mutation was greatly outpacing the change in the vaccines.

This capacity for mutation surprised people, but it was a function of the very high infection rate and the failure by the global community as a whole to take effective measures to control the virus until we could vaccinate enough people.

Therefore I don't think they lied about this as such. If the virus had stayed in its original form, or even as Alpha/pre-Delta, then I believe it would have been eradicated in the West by the vaccines (and elsewhere if we had been clever about it).
Click to expand...

Even with Alpha variant the ability to prevent transmission was limited. The early data showed very plainly to anyone paying attention that the vaccines simply couldn't hold up the ability to prevent transmission but the official messaging and using it as the basis for making vaccines mandatory continued until it was undeniable. There was a lot of talk about how it reduced the infectious period but not a lot of talk that it didn't significantly reduce peak infectivity and that reduction came from the periods at the start and end of the infectious period where the lesser number of infection events were distributed.

Tephnos said:
There was no conspiracy theory regarding transmission, and I'm not sure why Rroff is pushing that angle. As Itron has said, it actually *did* prevent transmission, right up until Delta (somewhat), but mostly Omicron.

That is not the fault of messaging, but of changing circumstances. People seem to forget that by the first few weeks of vaccination, our infection numbers plummeted to almost under 4 digits.
Click to expand...

A short term affect which the vaccines were unable to sustain longer term irrespective of variant.

Tony Edwards said:
Colds and flu did not vanish fo two years. Its just less people caught them because they werent out catching it and spreadding it. Road accidents went down as well, now they have gone up again.
Click to expand...

Distancing, masks and sanitisation had a huge impact as well as reduced activity - we had no outbreaks at work, despite some people picking up colds and even COVID outside of work and coming in while infectious, for ~2 years until we dropped measures, then it was like flicking a switch - one person would come in with a cold or COVID and before you knew it half the staff had it.

I'm kind of annoyed work has stopped bothering with the supply of industrial anti-bacterial/viral wipes and the regime for using them as they undeniably had a huge impact, not just the impact of background levels, on preventing stuff going around in general.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Even with Alpha variant the ability to prevent transmission was limited. The early data showed very plainly to anyone paying attention that the vaccines simply couldn't hold up the ability to prevent transmission but the official messaging and using it as the basis for making vaccines mandatory continued until it was undeniable. There was a lot of talk about how it reduced the infectious period but not a lot of talk that it didn't significantly reduce peak infectivity and that reduction came from the periods at the start and end of the infectious period where the lesser number of infection events were distributed.



A short term affect which the vaccines were unable to sustain longer term irrespective of variant.



Distancing, masks and sanitisation had a huge impact as well as reduced activity - we had no outbreaks at work, despite some people picking up colds and even COVID outside of work and coming in while infectious, for ~2 years until we dropped measures, then it was like flicking a switch - one person would come in with a cold or COVID and before you knew it half the staff had it.

I'm kind of annoyed work has stopped bothering with the supply of industrial anti-bacterial/viral wipes and the regime for using them as they undeniably had a huge impact, not just the impact of background levels, on preventing stuff going around in general.
Click to expand...

Sorry didnt even post anything clicked by mistake meant to press cancel.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Even with Alpha variant the ability to prevent transmission was limited. The early data showed very plainly to anyone paying attention that the vaccines simply couldn't hold up the ability to prevent transmission but the official messaging and using it as the basis for making vaccines mandatory continued until it was undeniable. There was a lot of talk about how it reduced the infectious period but not a lot of talk that it didn't significantly reduce peak infectivity and that reduction came from the periods at the start and end of the infectious period where the lesser number of infection events were distributed.
Click to expand...

This isn't true.

It's true that the probability of transmission if infected isn't much impacted, however the primary impact of the vaccine is that it prevents you getting infected in the first place. The prevention of infection has massively reduced the level of transmission.
 
Mr Jack said:
It's true that the probability of transmission if infected isn't much impacted, however the primary impact of the vaccine is that it prevents you getting infected in the first place. The prevention of infection has massively reduced the level of transmission.
Click to expand...

Overly simplified but prevention of infection in the first place, to a level which can significantly impact transmission, only happens for a relatively short period after the immune system is triggered by the vaccine - this effect does not last, but leaves the immune system able to more quickly and more effectively react to the virus in the longer term.

It is undeniable looking at the data that the ability to prevent infection is short lived - especially with Omicron but was also true before that, the ability to reduce severity of an infection much longer lived and more substantial.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Overly simplified but prevention of infection in the first place, to a level which can significantly impact transmission, only happens for a relatively short period after the immune system is triggered by the vaccine - this effect does not last, but leaves the immune system able to more quickly and more effectively react to the virus in the longer term.
Click to expand...

Two doses of mRNA vaccine still provided 80% protection at 8 months in one study, found a fall of 20-30 percentage points averaged across multiples vaccines over 6 months. Similar numbers appear in various other studies. The idea that protection quickly decays to nothing is simply not supported by the data, and the residual level of a 60%+ reduction in infection is still a highly important reduction in levels of transmission.

It's disappointing that the very high levels of protection (and thus transmission reduction) seen in the trial data proved not to be persistent but the vaccines still provide extremely important levels of protection against all levels of disease and against transmission. This is particularly true if the populous continues to keep up with updated boosters targetting new variants.
 
Mr Jack said:
Two doses of mRNA vaccine still provided 80% protection at 8 months in one study, found a fall of 20-30 percentage points averaged across multiples vaccines over 6 months. Similar numbers appear in various other studies. The idea that protection quickly decays to nothing is simply not supported by the data, and the residual level of a 60%+ reduction in infection is still a highly important reduction in levels of transmission.

It's disappointing that the very high levels of protection (and thus transmission reduction) seen in the trial data proved not to be persistent but the vaccines still provide extremely important levels of protection against all levels of disease and against transmission. This is particularly true if the populous continues to keep up with updated boosters targetting new variants.
Click to expand...


Table 4a covers a lot of it though the government still seems to be glossing it up a bit when it comes to preventing infection/transmission.

The main thing is the vaccines are long term effective at preventing hospitalisation and death. But when it comes to preventing transmission the story is far more complicated and much less positive than the original messaging.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:

Table 4a covers a lot of it though the government still seems to be glossing it up a bit when it comes to preventing infection/transmission.

The main thing is the vaccines are long term effective at preventing hospitalisation and death. But when it comes to preventing transmission the story is far more complicated and much less positive than the original messaging.
Click to expand...

Why are you showing a table of Omicron effectiveness to prove your point? We already discussed that Omicron blew the gates off this door because the antibodies we produce are not nearly as effective against it compared to the OG strains. That is why the protection is so short-lived, because the body cannot sustain a massively high antibody count via brute force for long.

You don't need a high level of circulating antibodies to prevent (or significantly) reduce infection when the antibodies are near perfectly tailored to what you are targeting.

The studies Mr Jack is alluding to show that protection against the earlier variants was much more robust and for a long time. What you are arguing is not the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Tephnos said:
Why are you showing a table of Omicron effectiveness to prove your point? We already discussed that Omicron blew the gates off this door because the antibodies we produce are not nearly as effective against it compared to the OG strains. That is why the protection is so short-lived, because the body cannot sustain a massively high antibody count via brute force for long.

You don't need a high level of circulating antibodies to prevent (or significantly) reduce infection when the antibodies are near perfectly tailored to what you are targeting.
Click to expand...

I'm addressing more than one point - the document also covers Alpha and Delta though you need to go back to older versions of the report for more detail on those - but I linked those back along when it was more relevant. The same still stands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom