On 30/01/2023 15:19, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 10:27:54 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org
>> On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 4:14:16 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown
>>> On 28/01/2023 13:52, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 10:47:08 PM UTC+11, Martin
>>>> Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 27/01/2023 16:52, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:51:14 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
>>>>> UK strategy seems quite reasonable to me. I was never
>>>>> convinced that vaccinating the under 12's was reasonable. The
>>>>> risk to them from the vaccine is worse than the risk from
>>>>> catching Covid and gets worse the younger they are (and the
>>>>> dose calculation gets more tricky too).
>>>> You aren't vaccinating the under-12s to stop them getting Covid
>>>> on the basis of the risk to them. You are vaccinating them to
>>>> make it less likely that they will catch the disease and pass
>>>> it on to older people.
>>> But that isn't ethical if it increases the risk of killing
>> It protects them as well. Covid-19 is much less likely to kill
>> young children than adults, but it does kill some, and that risk is
>> larger than the risk that vaccination itself will lead to damaging
>> or fatal side-effects. It's less urgently necessary to protect kids
>> against Covid-19, and most of the lives it will saved will be
>> amongst the adults the kids might otherwise have infected, but it
>> does protect the kid as well.
In the under 12's it is the other way around. They have no individual
benefit from being vaccinated. The risk of the vaccine causing them
permanent harm is greater than the risk of a Covid infection.
(both are incredibly low - driving to school is more dangerous)
The risk profile might be changing now for the very youngest but in the
early phase of Covid there was an almost perfect correlation of risk
with age doubling for every 8 years older you are.
>>>> If you could reduce the chance of passing on the infection far
>>>> enough, the disease would stop being epidemic, and die out, as
>>>> small pox has.
>>> You stand a chance against a nice stable DNA based virus but
>>> there is literally no chance against an RNA virus like Covid-19.
>>> We got lucky with smallpox - it is the only example where we have
>>> managed to do it.
>> The vaccines against Covid-19 are unique in using the relatively
>> highly conserved spike protein as their antigen. They do work
>> against the next generation of mutants of the original Covid-19
>> vaccine (if less effectively), and I've now had a dose of the
>> bivalent vaccine that should work better.
It is only as good as your body can make the antibodies. Once the
primary antibody response wears off you can catch Covid again just as
easily as anyone else (same with every other coronavirus too).
The vaccine prevents it from doing you more serious harm but it cannot
prevent you getting infected once your antibodies fall too low again.
The timescales for this seem to vary from 3-9 months depending on which
researchers you believe (and can be as little 1 month if there is a new
strain). Our vaccination policies have driven Covid in the direction of
becoming ever more transmissible into the vaccinated population.
>> We would need to get a pretty much everybody vaccinated for the
>> approach to work, and we haven't got there yet, and so far seem to
>> have slacked off on trying to get there, but it's not an impossible
>>> Our immune system pretty much gives up making antibodies against
>>> Covid within a few months and you can be reinfected by the same
>>> strain again and again. The newer strains have managed to infect
>>> people as little as 3 weeks after they had recovered from a
>>> previous bout of Covid.
>> You are about seven times less likely to die of the infection if
>> you have been previously vaccinated. You may produce less
>> antibodies but you killer-T cells still seem to work
Including the preventative effect on catching it too it is about an
order of magnitude protection compared to being unvaccinated.
What is much less clear is how useful it is to keep boosting otherwise
healthy individuals for the benefit of Pfizer and Moderna's profits.
>>>> Getting enough people vaccinated does seem to be in the
>>>> too-hard basket.
>>> It is well beyond the too hard basket. The rate at which the
>>> vaccination acquired immunity declines for catching it you would
>>> have to do the entire global population every 4 months to even
>>> stand a chance.
>> Something of an exaggeration. And we do vaccinate pretty much every
>> against the new strains of seasonal flu every year.
Only in the first world. Covid is never going away now.
>>> Best estimates are that the disease has now become endemic and in
>>> the UK at least. There is an oscillatory phase of predator prey
>>> behaviour now with gradually decreasing amplitude and period sat
>>> on a fairly high baseline. It remains to be seen if it will back
>>> off this summer.
>> With most of the people passing on the infection still being
>> members of the unvaccinated minority, who develop a higher viral
>> load and sustain it for longer than the vaccinated majority.
That isn't even remotely true - at least in the UK. It is a fantasy
scenario that the vendors of expensive vaccines are peddling.
The vast majority of infections and transmissions are between people who
were fully vaccinated and boosted but in high risk occupations and have
had the disease more than once as well! This article in The Lancet sums
up the fallacy that you believe in rather well:
Covid is 10x more effective at killing the unvaccinated it infects but
that is *their* choice and they have to live or die by it.
>>> Hospital admissions with Covid are harder to fake so that is
>>> about the best metric we have (home tests are chargeable now so
>>> no-one bothers).
For the first two years the summer was enough to drop it back to very
>>> low levels but it became much more infective in July 2021 and has
>>> been stuck at a comparatively high level ever since. Omicron
>>> evolved toward Xmas of that year and has been driving the
>>> It is qualitatively different now to how it behaved in the early
>> Actually merely quantitatively different, but you do like your
>> alarmist rhetoric.
If you cannot see the difference between the early years when it fell
right back to near zero during the summers (even in an unvaccinated
population) and then in the second year where it exploded in mid summer
into a well vaccinated population than you are dumber than a rock.
Originally it was a seasonal respiratory disease that was only active in
the winter (in the UK). Now it is year round with a fairly high baseline
level of community infection and oscillations putting peaks on top of
that. The peaks do seem to be declining in both amplitude and period.
It may eventually settle to a dynamic equilibrium of near constant
infection levels with minor seasonal variation again - only time will
tell. Right now it is only really a serious threat to the unvaccinated
awkward squad and those with compromised immune systems.
That said the odd person is unlucky even now. A friend (fully vaccinated
and boosted) has been laid low with Covid and after effects since Xmas.
But they are the exceptions now rather than being 5%
Odd then that asymptomatic transmission in the UK did so much damage to
care homes and hospitals. Though part of the problem there was that
early on the 111 and medical advice line was telling doctors with no
sense of smell to "stop malingering and damn well get back to work!".
I would be very surprised if Covid didn't actually follow the game plan
of just about every other respiratory virus where you are at your most
infective just before you begin to show symptoms (in terms of sampling
of bodily fluids).
Symptoms like violent sneezing spread the virus very efficiently means
that you are a much more effective transmitter of disease once you have
symptoms but peak viral load in many people is just prior to that.
The viral loads of symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals seem to be
pretty similar according to the UK human challenge trials: