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

[jojojo]

Are we seeing another rise in cases?

In the UK? We're seeing the case rates wobbling around the 25k mark - not rising or falling much - R rate about 1. The difference between rising/falling probably down to things like weekend weather (indoors or outdoor socialising) and windows open/closed.

I also suspect things like the covid app have stopped working completely now. As was inevitable when pub check-in etc became optional.

We won't know where the rates are really going until autumn - weather deteriorating, students back at school/college. Basically the more people who build up immunity this month (preferably by vaccination) the easier the autumn is likely to be. As long as the hospital rates stay where they are, it's about as good as the government could have hoped for.

 

[giggs-beckham]

In the UK? We're seeing the case rates wobbling around the 25k mark - not rising or falling much - R rate about 1. The difference between rising/falling probably down to things like weekend weather (indoors or outdoor socialising) and windows open/closed.

I also suspect things like the covid app have stopped working completely now. As was inevitable when pub check-in etc became optional.

We won't know where the rates are really going until autumn - weather deteriorating, students back at school/college. Basically the more people who build up immunity this month (preferably by vaccination) the easier the autumn is likely to be. As long as the hospital rates stay where they are, it's about as good as the government could have hoped for.

Nice one thanks. If you go on the worldometer site and click on the 7 day average there shows a rise but its too early to tell I guess.

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

You’re definitely wrong here. If the question is what is more dangerous, immunity via catching covid or immunity via vaccination then we know that immunity via vaccination is safer (and most likely more effective) for all age groups.

That calculation gets trickier if there’s a chance of not being exposed to covid at all. Which is why there’s been varying opinions about using the AZ vaccine in the young (because it very rarely causes dangerous blood clots in young people). If the risk of catching covid is low the calculations change to the point where vaccination might not make sense. Even in that scenario, the benefit of vaccination with mRNA vaccines still outweighed the risk.

Delta’s changed all of this now (plus whatever future variants we need to deal with). It’s not going away and we are all going to be exposed to SARS-COV-2 at some point in our life. Probably more than once. And we know, with absolute certainty, that the risk of serious illness/death is a lot higher (best estimate right now are 10x higher) for the un-vaccinated vs the vaccinated. So the decision for younger, healthier people has gone from slightly complex to an absolute no-brainer. And that’s from a purely personal viewpoint. Obviously the higher the rates of vaccination the lower the community transmission. Which helps protect people who can’t get vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons.

All of which means that anyone who is eligible for vaccination but chooses not to is putting themselves or others at risk. Most likely both. Not a good look either way.

I would respectfully disagree with you here, because the interpretation i have from the data that i read substantiates the opposite, or atleast a more balanced perspective. I would perhaps be more beneficial if you include the studies you have read, so that people can research both perspectives in order to inform themselves as critical and objective as possible. In my previous post i already enlisted the WHO scientific brief from 10 may 2020, stating:

‘Within 4 weeks following infection, 90-99% of individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus develop detectable neutralizing antibodies.The strength and duration of the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 are not completely understood and currently available data suggests that it varies by age and the severity of symptoms.

Available scientific data suggests that in most people immune responses remain robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6-8 months after infection (the longest follow up with strong scientific evidence is currently approximately 8 months).

full article available on the WHO website, https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1346855/retrieve

Another source i will enlist is the study from bioRxiv, the pre paper server for biology. Just to specify this study, it researched the the memory b cell evolution 5 monts after vaccinations, specifically with the Moderna (mrna- 1273) or Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2).

Quote: ' Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection produces B-cell responses that continue to evolve for at least one year. During that time, memory B cells express increasingly broad and potent antibodies that are resistant to mutations found in variants of concern1. As a result, vaccination of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines produces high levels of plasma neutralizing activity against all variants tested'
The above quote is a fantastic finding, given the fact that it describes that all current available mRNA vaccines produce high levels of plasma neutralizing activity against all variants. So, from that perspective i agree with your argument that vaccination provides great protection against all variants that were tested.

5 months into the memory b cell evolution, the paper concludes the following:
Results: ' Between prime and boost, memory B cells produce antibodies that evolve increased neutralizing activity, but there is no further increase in potency or breadth thereafter. Instead, memory B cells that emerge 5 months after vaccination of naïve individuals express antibodies that are equivalent to those that dominate the initial response. We conclude that memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination. These results suggest that boosting vaccinated individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines would produce a quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.

Full study available on: Antibody Evolution after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination | bioRxiv
Based on the study above, i would therefore conclude that the vaccines provide protection within a 5 month period against all tested variants (note here, tested variants) After the development of memory B cells that emerge 5 months after, the conclusion was/is that there is quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.

This data seems to be in line with the drop efficancy that countries like Israel, Schotland are reporting. It also seems in line with the article i quoted from Reuters in an earlier post:
(Reuters)

'Vaccines have been shown to provide good protection against severe disease and death from Delta, especially with two doses, but there is less data on whether vaccinated people can still transmit it to others. "Some initial findings ... indicate that levels of virus in those who become infected with Delta having already been vaccinated may be similar to levels found in unvaccinated people,"PHE said in a statement.'

Full article: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/en...r-virus-levels-regardless-vaccine-2021-08-06/

Do you have references which have studied the protection of anti bodies through natural immunity and vaccination and their time span? Im interested to read those as well, so that i can compare the different studies. Vaccination is at the minimum a vital step for immune compromised individuals and risk groups. My intent is to study all possible perspectives as objective as possible with legitmate sources.

Appreciate the conversation!

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I would respectfully disagree with you here, because the interpretation i have from the data that i read substantiates the opposite, or atleast a more balanced perspective. I would perhaps be more beneficial if you include the studies you have read, so that people can research both perspectives in order to inform themselves as critical and objective as possible. In my previous post i already enlisted the WHO scientific brief from 10 may 2020, stating:

‘Within 4 weeks following infection, 90-99% of individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus develop detectable neutralizing antibodies.The strength and duration of the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 are not completely understood and currently available data suggests that it varies by age and the severity of symptoms.

Available scientific data suggests that in most people immune responses remain robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6-8 months after infection (the longest follow up with strong scientific evidence is currently approximately 8 months).

full article available on the WHO website, https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1346855/retrieve

Another source i will enlist is the study from bioRxiv, the pre paper server for biology. Just to specify this study, it researched the the memory b cell evolution 5 monts after vaccinations, specifically with the Moderna (mrna- 1273) or Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2).

Quote: ' Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection produces B-cell responses that continue to evolve for at least one year. During that time, memory B cells express increasingly broad and potent antibodies that are resistant to mutations found in variants of concern1. As a result, vaccination of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines produces high levels of plasma neutralizing activity against all variants tested'
The above quote is a fantastic finding, given the fact that it describes that all current available mRNA vaccines produce high levels of plasma neutralizing activity against all variants. So, from that perspective i agree with your argument that vaccination provides great protection against all variants that were tested.

5 months into the memory b cell evolution, the paper concludes the following:
Results: ' Between prime and boost, memory B cells produce antibodies that evolve increased neutralizing activity, but there is no further increase in potency or breadth thereafter. Instead, memory B cells that emerge 5 months after vaccination of naïve individuals express antibodies that are equivalent to those that dominate the initial response. We conclude that memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination. These results suggest that boosting vaccinated individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines would produce a quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.

Full study available on: Antibody Evolution after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination | bioRxiv
Based on the study above, i would therefore conclude that the vaccines provide protection within a 5 month period against all tested variants (note here, tested variants) After the development of memory B cells that emerge 5 months after, the conclusion was/is that there is quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.

This data seems to be in line with the drop efficancy that countries like Israel, Schotland are reporting. It also seems in line with the article i quoted from Reuters in an earlier post:
(Reuters)

'Vaccines have been shown to provide good protection against severe disease and death from Delta, especially with two doses, but there is less data on whether vaccinated people can still transmit it to others. "Some initial findings ... indicate that levels of virus in those who become infected with Delta having already been vaccinated may be similar to levels found in unvaccinated people,"PHE said in a statement.'

Full article: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/en...r-virus-levels-regardless-vaccine-2021-08-06/

Do you have references which have studied the protection of anti bodies through natural immunity and vaccination and their time span? Im interested to read those as well, so that i can compare the different studies. Vaccination is at the minimum a vital step for immune compromised individuals and risk groups. My intent is to study all possible perspectives as objective as possible with legitmate sources.

Appreciate the conversation!

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.

 

[jojojo]

I would respectfully disagree with you here, because the interpretation i have from the data that i read substantiates the opposite, or atleast a more balanced perspective. I would perhaps be more beneficial if you include the studies you have read, so that people can research both perspectives in order to inform themselves as critical and objective as possible. In my previous post i already enlisted the WHO scientific brief from 10 may 2020, stating:

‘Within 4 weeks following infection, 90-99% of individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus develop detectable neutralizing antibodies.The strength and duration of the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 are not completely understood and currently available data suggests that it varies by age and the severity of symptoms.

Available scientific data suggests that in most people immune responses remain robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6-8 months after infection (the longest follow up with strong scientific evidence is currently approximately 8 months).

full article available on the WHO website, https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1346855/retrieve

Another source i will enlist is the study from bioRxiv, the pre paper server for biology. Just to specify this study, it researched the the memory b cell evolution 5 monts after vaccinations, specifically with the Moderna (mrna- 1273) or Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2).

Quote: ' Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection produces B-cell responses that continue to evolve for at least one year. During that time, memory B cells express increasingly broad and potent antibodies that are resistant to mutations found in variants of concern1. As a result, vaccination of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines produces high levels of plasma neutralizing activity against all variants tested'
The above quote is a fantastic finding, given the fact that it describes that all current available mRNA vaccines produce high levels of plasma neutralizing activity against all variants. So, from that perspective i agree with your argument that vaccination provides great protection against all variants that were tested.

5 months into the memory b cell evolution, the paper concludes the following:
Results: ' Between prime and boost, memory B cells produce antibodies that evolve increased neutralizing activity, but there is no further increase in potency or breadth thereafter. Instead, memory B cells that emerge 5 months after vaccination of naïve individuals express antibodies that are equivalent to those that dominate the initial response. We conclude that memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination. These results suggest that boosting vaccinated individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines would produce a quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.

Full study available on: Antibody Evolution after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination | bioRxiv
Based on the study above, i would therefore conclude that the vaccines provide protection within a 5 month period against all tested variants (note here, tested variants) After the development of memory B cells that emerge 5 months after, the conclusion was/is that there is quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.

This data seems to be in line with the drop efficancy that countries like Israel, Schotland are reporting. It also seems in line with the article i quoted from Reuters in an earlier post:
(Reuters)

'Vaccines have been shown to provide good protection against severe disease and death from Delta, especially with two doses, but there is less data on whether vaccinated people can still transmit it to others. "Some initial findings ... indicate that levels of virus in those who become infected with Delta having already been vaccinated may be similar to levels found in unvaccinated people,"PHE said in a statement.'

Full article: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/en...r-virus-levels-regardless-vaccine-2021-08-06/

Do you have references which have studied the protection of anti bodies through natural immunity and vaccination and their time span? Im interested to read those as well, so that i can compare the different studies. Vaccination is at the minimum a vital step for immune compromised individuals and risk groups. My intent is to study all possible perspectives as objective as possible with legitmate sources.

Appreciate the conversation!

It may well be the case that the best long-term immune protection comes from vaccinating someone who has already had covid.

The trouble is as a public health strategy, that's a bit crap. You end up with packed hospitals and a lot of dead bodies. Alternatively, you can try to artificially slow the infection rates in the community by continued lockdown type restrictions - in which case you'll take years to reach the same goal and have the same pile of dead bodies.

Living with covid means exactly that for most of us, we want to live. Not be Locked up to protect healthcare. Not to bury people who misread their personal odds and got unlucky.

Chances are we'll all catch covid in the future. We can do it vaccinated, or do it as a immune naive case. The stats say that on average adults are better off vaxxed than going in naive. If you get covid when you're vaxxed you'll again probably build your personal immunity - only more safely than the other way round.

You're not revealing some great insight. You're obscuring the actual public health reality that means vaccination is always the first choice - unless you're one of the unlucky ones who can't take the vaccine. In which case you have to wait for everyone else to stop spreading it.

 

[The Boy]

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.

 

[jymufc20]

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.

I'd say that family shouldn't be going anywhere, they should be isolating if they love with her which I guess they do.

 

[Bosws87]

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.

Of course you are increasing the chances of you catching it the more infected people you have in your house.

 

[The Boy]

Of course you are increasing the chances of you catching it the more infected people you have in your house.

I get that but is it a significant increase or given that our daughter is already positive is it just a statistically insignificant one?

 

[Bosws87]

I get that but is it a significant increase or given that our daughter is already positive is it just a statistically insignificant one?

I'd be more inclined to tell the other family they are selfish.

 

[Snowjoe]

So not only are they not going to isolate despite someone in their house being positive but they’re going to leave their covid positive child at home whilst the sod off on holiday, incredible

 

[Santos J]

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.

I know people haven't been able to get away so are desperate to and that but fecking hell that is mental

 

[jojojo]

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.

I'm struggling a bit with a family who think leaving a sick 9 year old behind while they go on holiday is a good idea. Particularly as they, according to UK rules, are still supposed to quarantine as close contacts - though there's a rule change coming on Monday for the double vaxxed.

They may have tested negative today, but presumably their daughter hasn't been living in a tent in the garden for the past week. I feel sorry for the staff/locals/other visitors at wherever they're heading to.

On the specifics of letting positive cases stay - there's a bit of a do you feel lucky in the equation?

A lot depends on your house - separate rooms, bathrooms, garden access etc. And on yourselves and the kids. How will they handle being held prisoner in their rooms. What would you do if one of them did get ill? I've got friends who looked after a kid who tested positive to help out a relative who has an immune deficiency - which seemed like a good thing to do. But for a holiday - no, not really.

 

[BD]

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.

feck sake. Tell them to cop on. (or at least that's what I'd do if I wasn't extremely conflict-averse)

 

[The Cat]

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.

Struggling to get my ahead around them actually asking you that for a few reasons

 

[Pogue Mahone]

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.

Definitely would increase your risk of catching covid, vaccinated or not. Plus your 11 year old isn’t vaccinated so hanging round with two covid positive kids makes her a hell of a lot more likely to catch it than with just one.

As others have already said, leaving a sick child behind to piss off on holiday seems like a real cnuty thing to do. Especially when they shouldn’t go anywhere as close contacts of a confirmed case. Leaving that sick child where they can make other families unwell is just doubling down on that selfishness. Tell them to feck off.

 

[fergies coat]

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.

Tell them to do one. What shitty parents leave their 9 year old with someone else while they go on holiday? I don't think a post on here has ever wound me up as much as this one.

 

[The Boy]

Thanks for all the replies! You’ll be glad to hear they have cancelled because as a few people pointed out they maybe negative now but that could change as they are close contacts and at least till the rules change on Monday they have to isolate.

I should have been clearer and pointed out that though their daughter has tested positive she is symptomless at the moment and only tested because our daughter is positive.

She’s been staying over at ours since she was a baby and is like part of our family so it wasn’t as shitty as it came across in my 1st post.

But they are doing the right thing!

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

It may well be the case that the best long-term immune protection comes from vaccinating someone who has already had covid.

The trouble is as a public health strategy, that's a bit crap. You end up with packed hospitals and a lot of dead bodies. Alternatively, you can try to artificially slow the infection rates in the community by continued lockdown type restrictions - in which case you'll take years to reach the same goal and have the same pile of dead bodies.

Living with covid means exactly that for most of us, we want to live. Not be Locked up to protect healthcare. Not to bury people who misread their personal odds and got unlucky.

Chances are we'll all catch covid in the future. We can do it vaccinated, or do it as a immune naive case. The stats say that on average adults are better off vaxxed than going in naive. If you get covid when you're vaxxed you'll again probably build your personal immunity - only more safely than the other way round.

You're not revealing some great insight. You're obscuring the actual public health reality that means vaccination is always the first choice - unless you're one of the unlucky ones who can't take the vaccine. In which case you have to wait for everyone else to stop spreading it.

In science, all we can do is to test the formulated premises with neccesary criteria in order to derive theories that suit the current available data. It's not about revealing 'insightful' information per se (that is the point where i would respectfully disagree with you). My .intent is to try to have an as balanced view as possible, discussing the topic from different perspectives and to have an open mind to learn.

You've mentioned (in regards to the strategy of immunization) that 'we can do it vaccinated or as immune naive cases'.
Hence why i referenced sources which give insight on this specific aspect. The conclusion of the Pre Paper of bioRxiv stated:

'We conclude that memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination. These results suggest that boosting vaccinated individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines would produce a quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals. (bioRxiv).

Note, this is not convincing evidence in the sense that it is peer reviewed, this pandemic is still 'young' and new data will more likely then not become more available during the course of this pandemic. it would be unscientific to present this as an 'absolute' fact, hence the little note here. The above quote is merely a perspective to be considered.

I fully agree that as a public health strategy there are severe complications which result from lockdowns, such as increased mental health, child abuse/drug and alcohol abuse etc.Lockdowns come with a deadly cost and implementing it as a public healthy strategy when its more likely then not that Corona is here to stay is a serious violation of one's self determination and right to live life. This opens up another discussion in itself, in regards to sacrifying 'values' of one's self for the greater good, the societal risk.

I also respectfully disagree that i'm obscuring a public health reality. I've cited WHO and the bioRxiv Pre Paper and a Reuters article as sources to discuss a specific topic, which is immunity through natural infection and vacciniation. I do find it interesting that you described the public health as a 'bit of crap strategy'. Does that mean you disagree with it? Or does that mean you agree with it and the effects of lockdown are simply collateral damage for the greater good?

In the end, i see this situation as an immune vs not immune situation, and those who are immune compromised should take the vaccine. Those (healthy individuals) who want to naturally recover should have the right to do so, unless there is significant data to substantiate that natural immunation through infection is a significantrisk for one's self and others. Hence why i requested studies or articles specifically about this, so that i can research them in order to increase my knowledge about it.

Appreciate the conversation!

 

[golden_blunder]

Mandatory? I don't think it should be made mandatory. But business, shops, planes, individuals, government...countries!

They have the right to put their rules in their precincts and if they don't want people to put them at risk. So they have the right to accept people under their conditions if they believe that it risks their health. And that happens in many areas of our like currently. To take a plane you can't bring certain items, you can't go to a roller coaster if you are too short or too tall and heavy, speed limits, etc...Risk of discrimination? This is proofed science and has nothing in beliefs.

You then can choose to not vaccinate, but you have to accept the limitations that might come with it. Of course, exceptions should be made for the ones that can't take it for medical reasons

It should be mandatory in places of health care. You can argue all the others if you like but in a medical facility it should be mandatory

 

[golden_blunder]

I tend to agree with the notion of proposing this as an immune or not immune discussion. Statistically the overwhelming majority of Corona deaths are elderly with underlying conditions. Risk groups should get the vaccination, considering they are at the highest risk bracket statistically.

An infected person who already contracted covid (before vaccination) is more likely then not operating on antibodies which makes them immune against the virus.

quote:

‘ people who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 will probably make antibodies against the virus for most of their lives. So suggest researchers who have identified long-lived antibody-producing cells in the bone marrow of people who have recovered from COVID-19’

Source: (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9)

The WHO in its scientific brief on 10 may 2020 stated similair data:


‘Within 4 weeks following infection, 90-99% of individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus develop detectable neutralizing antibodies.The strength and duration of the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 are not completely understood and currently available data suggests that it varies by age and the severity of symptoms.

Available scientific data suggests that in most people immune responses remain robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6-8 months after infection (the longest follow up with strong scientific evidence is currently approximately 8 months).

full article available on the WHO website, https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1346855/retrieve

To answer your question, I’m for vaccination, especially for risk groups. At the same time I believe that healthy individuals without any serious underlying health conditions are on the safe side with their natural immunity with higher reported survival rates (up to 99%). I could be wrong here, i intend to try to look at these matters as critical but as objective as possible. It can only be beneficial to have an openmind in discussion (of any subject for that matter) with the willingness to learn.

Back to your question. I would categorically not argue that people should NOT get vaccinated, especially for those who have immune system complications by being a risk group. I also would not argue against healthy individuals without any serious health conditions to relay on their natural immune system.

Right of choice ought to always be the key in my humble opinion.

But there are lots of examples of previously fit and healthy people with no pre condition dying or getting long covid. Plenty of examples.

natural immune system will not beat this without help. You are spreading dangerous nonsense

 

[golden_blunder]

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.

No idea re your question but how could they go off and leave their daughter? I wouldn’t be able to if one of my sons was sick

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

But there are lots of examples of previously fit and healthy people with no pre condition dying or getting long covid. Plenty of examples.

natural immune system will not beat this without help. You are spreading dangerous nonsense

I've never stated that healthy people dont die, nor would i ever make such a claim. The twitter image was meant to discuss the topic of natural immunization through infection and immunization through vaccination. I've also said that statistically the overwhelming majority of the corona deaths are elderly with underlying health conditions. I've never claimed that healthy people can not die.

COVID-19 deaths with underlying health conditions
Figures for COVID-19 deaths with underlying health conditions are available on Table 5 of the above publication. Main pre-existing causes are grouped using the ONS Leading Causes of Deaths list and International Classification of Disease version 10 blocks of causes.

• With pre-existing condition: England and Wales - 45,859
• With pre-existing condition: England - 43,640
• With pre-existing condition: Wales -- 2156

full article (25 november, 2020): COVID-19 deaths broken down by underlying health condition - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

I would also never spread information from unreliable sources or untrustworhy figures to stirr misinformation. If that twitter image is considered as such, i will then consider it as an advice to myself to be more critical of the images i post. Hope that clears it up!

 

[Pogue Mahone]

In science, all we can do is to test the formulated premises with neccesary criteria in order to derive theories that suit the current available data. It's not about revealing 'insightful' information per se (that is the point where i would respectfully disagree with you).

It's about discussing data which has been researched and conclusions that are formed by people/institutions more qualified then us. You've mentioned that 'we can do it vaccinated or as immune naive cases'. The WHO scientific brief of may 2021, the Pre Paper of the bioRxiv study and the Reuters article were sources i mentioned specifically about this topic. I've presented a perspective based on the results of that study which entails:

'We conclude that memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination. These results suggest that boosting vaccinated individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines would produce a quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals. (bioRxiv).

Note, this is not convincing evidence in the sense that it is peer reviewed, this pandemic is still 'young' and new data will more likely then not become more available during the course of this pandemic. it would be unscientific to present this as an 'absolute' fact, hence the little note here.

I fully agree that as a public health strategy there are severe complications which result from lockdowns, such as increased mental health, child abuse/drug and alcohol abuse etc.Lockdowns come with a deadly cost and implementing it as a public healthy strategy when its more likely then not that Corona is here to stay is a serious violation of one's self determination and right to live life. This opens up another discussion in itself, in regards to sacrifying 'values' of one's self for the greater good, the societal risk.

I also respectfully disagree that i'm obscuring a public health reality. I've cited WHO and the bioRxiv Pre Paper and a Reuters article as sources to discuss a specific topic, which is immunity through natural infection and vacciniation. I do find it interesting that you described the public health as a 'bit of crap strategy'. Does that mean you disagree with it? Or does that mean you agree with it and the effects of lockdown are simply collateral damage for the greater good?

In the end, i see this situation as an immune vs not immune situation, and those who are immune compromised should take the vaccine. Those (healthy individuals) who want to naturally recover should have the right to do so, unless there is significant data to substantiate that natural immunation through infection is a significantrisk for one's self and others. Hence why i requested studies or articles specifically about this, so that i can research them in order to increase my knowledge about it.

Appreciate the conversation!

Here you go. Read this. Now I’ve previously shared multiple peer reviewed articles with you. On here and via PM and you’re giving the impression of not reading any of them. If you’re going to pretend to be open-minded and curious then you really need to do us all a favour and actually make an effort to read the evidence you keep asking for.

This study uses age-specific COVID-19-associated death data from 45 countries and the results of 22 seroprevalence studies to investigate the consistency of infection and fatality patterns across multiple countries. This is seriously robust data.

Here’s the most relevant graph (although, obviously, you need to read the full article to understand it properly).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0/figures/2

These are infection fatality rates. The IFR is the most conservative possible way to assess mortality. Case fatality rates (CFR) can overestimate mortality because they don’t consider asymptomatic cases or cases so mild they don’t go and get tested.

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. This increases to about 1 in 1000 by the age of 40. And so on. That’s the risk you take if you choose immunity via infection. And that’s just using death as an end point. Not considering hospitalisation (which is absolutely fecking miserable, believe me) or long covid, or even shitty but minor consequences like permanently losing or altering your sense of taste or smell.

Can you imagine how absolutely fecked the world would be if vaccines killed 1 in 1000 of all the 40 year old who got them? Or how about putting much higher numbers than that in hospital? Or leaving them feeling like shit for months and years afterwards? Or permanently messing with taste/smell?

Well you can only imagine because the vaccines would never have been licensed if they were as damaging to your health as covid. Having been licensed, extensive follow up surveillance in millions and millions of people have confirmed they are absolutely fecking MILES safer than infection with covid. And we may still be waiting for the really long term safety data but we’re also waiting for the long term data on infection with the novel coronavirus SARS-COV-2 (and we already now that there are definite medium term adverse effects thanks to the millions of people suffering with long covid)

To prattle on about preprints which show that covid infection might have slightly increased duration of effect than vaccines (assuming nobody ever gets vaccine boosters) as a reason to choose this method of immunity over vaccination is so spectacularly wrong-headed I find myself repeatedly wondering if you really are entering this discussion as open-minded as you claim to be.

And now I’m annoyed at myself for replying to you again….

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

Here you go. Read this. Now I’ve previously shared multiple peer reviewed articles with you. On here and via PM and you’re giving the impression of not reading any of them. If you’re going to pretend to be open-minded and curious then you really need to do us all a favour and actually make an effort to read the evidence you keep asking for.

This study uses age-specific COVID-19-associated death data from 45 countries and the results of 22 seroprevalence studies to investigate the consistency of infection and fatality patterns across multiple countries. This is seriously robust data.

Here’s the most relevant graph (although, obviously, you need to read the full article to understand it properly).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0/figures/2

These are infection fatality rates. The IFR is the most conservative possible way to assess mortality. Case fatality rates (CFR) can overestimate mortality because they don’t consider asymptomatic cases or cases so mild they don’t go and get tested.

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. This increases to about 1 in 1000 by the age of 40. And so on. That’s the risk you take if you choose immunity via infection. And that’s just using death as an end point. Not considering hospitalisation (which is absolutely fecking miserable, believe me) or long covid, or even shitty but minor consequences like permanently losing or altering your sense of taste or smell.

Can you imagine how absolutely fecked the world would be if vaccines killed 1 in 1000 of all the 40 year old who got them? Or how about putting much higher numbers than that in hospital? Or leaving them feeling like shit for months and years afterwards? Or permanently messing with taste/smell?

Well you can only imagine because the vaccines would never have been licensed if they were as damaging to your health as covid. Having been licensed, extensive follow up surveillance in millions and millions of people have confirmed they are absolutely fecking MILES safer than infection with covid. And we may still be waiting for the really long term safety data but we’re also waiting for the long term data on infection with the novel coronavirus SARS-COV-2 (and we already now that there are definite medium term adverse effects thanks to the millions of people suffering with long covid)

To prattle on about preprints which show that covid infection might have slightly increased duration of effect than vaccines (assuming nobody ever gets vaccine boosters) as a reason to choose this method of immunity over vaccination is so spectacularly wrong-headed I find myself repeatedly wondering if you really are entering this discussion as open-minded as you claim to be.

And now I’m annoyed at myself for replying to you again….

Im going to read those links! I'd invite you at the weekly zoom calls me and group (including some medical students) have, where these subjects are being discussed, but i think we'd be annoyed at your attempt at speaking dutch... (little bit of banter here) all jokes aside, im going to read that link and give my two cents about it when ready!

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Im going to read those links! I'd invite you at the weekly zoom calls me and group (including some medical students) have, where these subjects are being discussed, but i think we'd be annoyed at your attempt at speaking dutch... (little bit of banter here) all jokes aside, im going to read that link and give my two cents about it when ready!

To be fair, I couldn’t even attempt to speak Dutch!

 

[The Boy]

No idea re your question but how could they go off and leave their daughter? I wouldn’t be able to if one of my sons was sick

As I said earlier I probably made it sound worse than it is. She is symptomless and spends lots of time at ours anyway, so having her stay for a week would not be weird, my daughter spends loads of time at hers and vice versa.

Anyway it’s a moot point as they decided not to go as they have to isolate as she is positive. I wouldn’t want people thinking they were heartless fecks leaving their very ill daughter with strangers, while they piss it up for days on end!

 

[JP77]

Went on holiday last week with my kids and missus and got pinged to self isolate two days after being back on Sunday. There were a few people trying to talk me into deleting the NHS track and trace app before I went but I stuck to my gut instincts and didn’t and so happy I didn’t.

got the notification Sunday morning, daughter started feeling rough on Monday too and then I started feeling rubbish on Wednesday. Did a test yesterday morning at home and it was positive. A pcr for me and my daughter both positive yesterday as well, pretty sure she’s picked it up in Yarmouth when we went away and then I’ve caught it off of her because of how close we are. Missus and son so far are negative and fine.Honestly think this is the worst I’ve felt in recent memory, feel like I’ve been hit by a truck, entire body aching like crazy, hot, throat terrible, headache, aching in my back and kidney, blocked up like crazy, chest on a mad one. Thankfully feels like my daughter is just beggining to get the upper hand on it slightly but I feel dreadful today.

Just so happy I stuck to my guns and kept the app because without it I would have been around my missus mum, potentially my mum and would have been at work up until I felt rough on Wednesday/today and did a test which means I could have passed it on to all sorts of people. Could never have lived with myself if I had passed it to somebody else especially a vulnerable person like my mum or somebody vulnerable at work but without the app notifying me I had been in contact with somebody it would have been too late and without a doubt I would have passed it on to somebody. No idea where my daughter caught it or if I caught it from her or with her on holiday but seems quite likely she caught it on holiday and I caught it off of her considering the timelines.

long story short, trust your gut, don’t listen to idiots and continue to take everything serious. I know some people get it without hardly any symptoms but on a honest level it’s knocked me for six.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Went on holiday last week with my kids and missus and got pinged to self isolate two days after being back on Sunday. There were a few people trying to talk me into deleting the NHS track and trace app before I went but I stuck to my gut instincts and didn’t and so happy I didn’t.

got the notification Sunday morning, daughter started feeling rough on Monday too and then I started feeling rubbish on Wednesday. Did a test yesterday morning at home and it was positive. A pcr for me and my daughter both positive yesterday as well, pretty sure she’s picked it up in Yarmouth when we went away and then I’ve caught it off of her because of how close we are. Missus and son so far are negative and fine.Honestly think this is the worst I’ve felt in recent memory, feel like I’ve been hit by a truck, entire body aching like crazy, hot, throat terrible, headache, aching in my back and kidney, blocked up like crazy, chest on a mad one. Thankfully feels like my daughter is just beggining to get the upper hand on it slightly but I feel dreadful today.

Just so happy I stuck to my guns and kept the app because without it I would have been around my missus mum, potentially my mum and would have been at work up until I felt rough on Wednesday/today and did a test which means I could have passed it on to all sorts of people. Could never have lived with myself if I had passed it to somebody else especially a vulnerable person like my mum or somebody vulnerable at work but without the app notifying me I had been in contact with somebody it would have been too late and without a doubt I would have passed it on to somebody. No idea where my daughter caught it or if I caught it from her or with her on holiday but seems quite likely she caught it on holiday and I caught it off of her considering the timelines.

long story short, trust your gut, don’t listen to idiots and continue to take everything serious. I know some people get it without hardly any symptoms but on a honest level it’s knocked me for six.

Thanks for sharing. Hope you’re feeling better soon!

 

[Penna]

Tell them to do one. What shitty parents leave their 9 year old with someone else while they go on holiday? I don't think a post on here has ever wound me up as much as this one.

It's terrible! "Sorry daughter, we love you and all that but ...."

 

[fergies coat]

It's terrible! "Sorry daughter, we love you and all that but ...."

Under no circumstance do you leave one child behind while the rest of you go on a holiday.

 

[McGrathsipan]

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.

Are you fecking serious!!
cnuts

 

[Stanley Road]

OP, I think you have your answer

 

[Carolina Red]

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.

Politely, but firmly, tell them to go feck themselves.

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

Here you go. Read this. Now I’ve previously shared multiple peer reviewed articles with you. On here and via PM and you’re giving the impression of not reading any of them. If you’re going to pretend to be open-minded and curious then you really need to do us all a favour and actually make an effort to read the evidence you keep asking for.

This study uses age-specific COVID-19-associated death data from 45 countries and the results of 22 seroprevalence studies to investigate the consistency of infection and fatality patterns across multiple countries. This is seriously robust data.

Here’s the most relevant graph (although, obviously, you need to read the full article to understand it properly).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0/figures/2

These are infection fatality rates. The IFR is the most conservative possible way to assess mortality. Case fatality rates (CFR) can overestimate mortality because they don’t consider asymptomatic cases or cases so mild they don’t go and get tested.

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. This increases to about 1 in 1000 by the age of 40. And so on. That’s the risk you take if you choose immunity via infection. And that’s just using death as an end point. Not considering hospitalisation (which is absolutely fecking miserable, believe me) or long covid, or even shitty but minor consequences like permanently losing or altering your sense of taste or smell.

Can you imagine how absolutely fecked the world would be if vaccines killed 1 in 1000 of all the 40 year old who got them? Or how about putting much higher numbers than that in hospital? Or leaving them feeling like shit for months and years afterwards? Or permanently messing with taste/smell?

Well you can only imagine because the vaccines would never have been licensed if they were as damaging to your health as covid. Having been licensed, extensive follow up surveillance in millions and millions of people have confirmed they are absolutely fecking MILES safer than infection with covid. And we may still be waiting for the really long term safety data but we’re also waiting for the long term data on infection with the novel coronavirus SARS-COV-2 (and we already now that there are definite medium term adverse effects thanks to the millions of people suffering with long covid)

To prattle on about preprints which show that covid infection might have slightly increased duration of effect than vaccines (assuming nobody ever gets vaccine boosters) as a reason to choose this method of immunity over vaccination is so spectacularly wrong-headed I find myself repeatedly wondering if you really are entering this discussion as open-minded as you claim to be.

And now I’m annoyed at myself for replying to you again….

The graph uses the variable IFR, which is true. IFR'S are measured by the reported Covid deaths divided by the number of Covid deaths. You have mentioned that the chance of being killed outright by Covid is about 1 in 10.000 from the age of about 20. The graphic indicates a sligtly below 0.01% fatality rate for the woman and 0.01% for man in the category of young adults. The UK has rougly 4.200.000 young adults from that age category 20-24. If all of them got infected, that would result in 420 deaths going by the IFR of 0.01%. That is not really an overwhelming significant risk, is it? Am i wrong here? If so, why?

You also used the nature.com reference and since you have used that reference i will use the same website to propose the following quote. Your link is dated 2 november 2020. The article i will reference is from june 14, 2021. A year and some change later. The article states:

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

Full article: A long-term perspective on immunity to COVID (nature.com)

Does that interpret as infection without vaccination? In my understanding it does. Do you have the same understanding?

Just to make clear, im not stating that immunity through infection is better then vaccination or vice versa. Im in the beginning stages of researching this subject, hence why i am going back and forth, considering you seem to be more visible in this thread and responding more then others.

 

[Snowjoe]

Under no circumstance do you leave one child behind while the rest of you go on a holiday.

My parents did that to me when I was in college because apparently I needed to study. Obviously I just spent the week getting blasted instead.

 

[golden_blunder]

Went on holiday last week with my kids and missus and got pinged to self isolate two days after being back on Sunday. There were a few people trying to talk me into deleting the NHS track and trace app before I went but I stuck to my gut instincts and didn’t and so happy I didn’t.

got the notification Sunday morning, daughter started feeling rough on Monday too and then I started feeling rubbish on Wednesday. Did a test yesterday morning at home and it was positive. A pcr for me and my daughter both positive yesterday as well, pretty sure she’s picked it up in Yarmouth when we went away and then I’ve caught it off of her because of how close we are. Missus and son so far are negative and fine.Honestly think this is the worst I’ve felt in recent memory, feel like I’ve been hit by a truck, entire body aching like crazy, hot, throat terrible, headache, aching in my back and kidney, blocked up like crazy, chest on a mad one. Thankfully feels like my daughter is just beggining to get the upper hand on it slightly but I feel dreadful today.

Just so happy I stuck to my guns and kept the app because without it I would have been around my missus mum, potentially my mum and would have been at work up until I felt rough on Wednesday/today and did a test which means I could have passed it on to all sorts of people. Could never have lived with myself if I had passed it to somebody else especially a vulnerable person like my mum or somebody vulnerable at work but without the app notifying me I had been in contact with somebody it would have been too late and without a doubt I would have passed it on to somebody. No idea where my daughter caught it or if I caught it from her or with her on holiday but seems quite likely she caught it on holiday and I caught it off of her considering the timelines.

long story short, trust your gut, don’t listen to idiots and continue to take everything serious. I know some people get it without hardly any symptoms but on a honest level it’s knocked me for six.

Hope you and your daughter make a quick, full recovery! Good luck fella. Glad you trusted your common sense re the app

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The graph uses the variable IFR, which is true. IFR'S are measured by the reported Covid deaths divided by the number of Covid deaths. You have mentioned that the chance of being killed outright by Covid is about 1 in 10.000 from the age of about 20. The graphic indicates a sligtly below 0.01% fatality rate for the woman and 0.01% for man in the category of young adults. The UK has rougly 4.200.000 young adults from that age category 20-24. If all of them got infected, that would result in 420 deaths going by the IFR of 0.01%. That is not really an overwhelming significant risk, is it? Am i wrong here? If so, why?

You also used the nature.com reference and since you have used that reference i will use the same website to propose the following quote. Your link is dated 2 november 2020. The article i will reference is from june 14, 2021. A year and some change later. The article states:

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

Full article: A long-term perspective on immunity to COVID (nature.com)

Does that interpret as infection without vaccination? In my understanding it does. Do you have the same understanding?

Just to make clear, im not stating that immunity through infection is better then vaccination or vice versa. Im in the beginning stages of researching this subject, hence why i am going back and forth, considering you seem to be more visible in this thread and responding more then others.

Good. Because it isn’t. And our discussion is over. If you ever have any doubts about this, have a re-read of that article and what I just told you. The IFR for covid between 20 and 40 years old starts at 1 in 10,000 and gradually increases to 1 in 1000. If the death rate from any of these vaccines was anywhere near as high that they never would have been licensed.

This isn’t some ridiculous argument about what exactly is an acceptable number of young people to die from covid while trying to become immune. It’s about the fact they can achieve the same goal by a FAR less dangerous method.

 

[Balljy]

The graphic indicates a sligtly below 0.01% fatality rate for the woman and 0.01% for man in the category of young adults. The UK has rougly 4.200.000 young adults from that age category 20-24. If all of them got infected, that would result in 420 deaths going by the IFR of 0.01%. That is not really an overwhelming significant risk, is it? Am i wrong here? If so, why?

That's not a significant risk for that small age group of 4 years which you've some reason pointed out (which then increases in IFR as was originally stated up to 1 in 1,000 by the age of 40). The lower end of that brings vaccines into the debate, the mid to upper end of it makes it a no-brainer based on IFR.

 

[F-Red]

Im in the beginning stages of researching this subject,

18 months into the pandemic? Do me a favour.