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

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:
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.

SAGE are total doom mongers, who will always find something to whinge about.

I’m not convinced by the idea that boosters prolong the pandemic. Vaccines no longer suppress transmission to any great degree. They’re all about avoiding hospitals getting overloaded and anywhere that hasn’t been extensively vaccinated by now will have a large proportion of their population partially protected by prior infection. A lot of the poorer countries with younger populations can get through these waves without much vaccinations, never mind boosters, SA’s omicron wave being a very recent, very obvious example.

And that’s without even getting into the misguided idea that if, say, the Uk decided against a booster program then all those doses could/would end up in the arms of people in the developing world instead.

So this is now a sure thing?
 
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.

The obvious concern is that <40 double jabbed people like you don’t live in a bubble. The more of you that get infected the more of you can pass the virus to more vulnerable people. Boosting will reduce overall case numbers as well as (hopefully) shorter duration of illness and viral load in breakthrough infections.

The booster campaign is about suppressing spread as much as possible. We know it won’t provide very strong defence against infection/transmission but it will provide some defence. Which can make a big difference at a population level.

You should also remember that a hell of a lot of boosted people were (and still will be) going to get exposed to delta and that the booster campaign was started at a time when there was no firm evidence that omicron would be any less virulent in the UK/EU.

Having said all that, what you say will be an important discussion once omicron is the only virus in town and it’s firmly established that it’s definitely much less virulent, to all ages. So will be taken into account whenever we need to think about the next wave of boosters.
 
Last edited:
So this is now a sure thing?
For someone who has had the booster it looks like efficacy against infection is in the range 70-75% against Omicron (that's compared to 90/95%+ against Delta). Basically that means you're 4x as likely to catch it if you're unvaxxed compared to vaxxed and boosted, which means it has a big impact on infection spread even for Omicron - hence the massive push on boosters in recent weeks.

Without the booster, the vaccine efficacy against Omicron against infection is much lower. It varies between vaccines and how long ago you had the second dose - but can drop to zero at 6 months. Still effective against serious disease, but not much help in terms of stopping spread.
 
The obvious concern is that <40 double jabbed people like you don’t live in a bubble. The more of you that get infected the more of you can pass the virus to more vulnerable people. Boosting will reduce overall case numbers as well as (hopefully) shorter duration of illness and viral load in breakthrough infections.

The booster campaign is about suppressing spread as much as possible. We know it won’t provide very strong defence against infection/transmission but it will provide some defence. Which can make a big difference at a population level.

You should also remember that a hell of a lot of boosted people were (and still will be) going to get exposed to delta and that the booster campaign was started at a time when there was no firm evidence that omicron would be any less virulent in the UK/EU.

Having said all that, what you say will be an important discussion once omicron is the only virus in town and it’s firmly established that it’s definitely much less virulent, to all ages. So will be taken into account whenever we need to think about the next wave of boosters.

It's true I kind of overlooked the fact Omicron is sitting on top of the Delta wave, but for the people <40 who were exposed to Delta and had been previously vaccinated, the individual risk / strain on the healthcare system was very small. The data for infection + hospitalisation by vaccination status is on pages 30 and 31 here.

Key figures over the 3 week period in November:
  • 103k 18-29 year olds and 149k 30-39 year olds were infected
  • Most of those people were double vaccinated (50% of 18-29s, 66% of 30-39s), reiterating the waning immunity
  • The hospitalisation rate for both groups was 0.2% (123 / 52,000 and 244 / 98,211) - it's 10x that for double-jabbed 60+
So I really don't think the volumes of Delta-related hospitalisations were that much of a concern either, and Omicron coming into play will bring down that average further.

And by the time the boosters were rolled out to the under 40s, more than 90% of those aged 60+ and 75% of those aged 50+ had been boosted. So I think the vulnerable were going to be sufficiently protected regardless of which direction we decided to go with the booster then.

And we did have good indications of it being a milder disease by that time. Omicron had already been identified in the UK 2 weeks before then, and it'd been in South Africa for over 3 weeks.

The goal of stopping the spread only makes sense when that's closely linked to hospitalisation, but if the vulnerable are sufficiently protected and disease among the less vulnerable is relatively mild, then stopping the spread might not be a legitimate goal. Having it spread to build broader and more durable immunity could be a net positive, if the risks are manageable. I think when these decisions were made we over-estimated the risks, we were overly cautious by choice. That's understandable and it's not much of a criticism, I'm just saying it could do a bit more harm in the medium term.

In the end I agree the evidence wasn't firm enough to make that kind of decision, but I really don't think the evidence was that ambiguous about hospitalisation risk for under 40s, protection levels for the most vulnerable, or severity of disease from Omicron, at the time they were announcing under-40 booster roll-outs.
 
Last edited:
It's true I kind of overlooked the fact Omicron is sitting on top of the Delta wave, but for the people <40 who were exposed to Delta and had been previously vaccinated, the individual risk / strain on the healthcare system was very small. The data for infection + hospitalisation by vaccination status is on pages 30 and 31 here.

Key figures over the 3 week period in November:
  • 103k 18-29 year olds and 149k 30-39 year olds were infected
  • Most of those people were double vaccinated (50% of 18-29s, 66% of 30-39s), reiterating the waning immunity
  • The hospitalisation rate for both groups was 0.2% (123 / 52,000 and 244 / 98,211) - it's 10x that for double-jabbed 60+
So I really don't think the volumes of Delta-related hospitalisations were that much of a concern either, and Omicron coming into play will bring down that average further.

And by the time the boosters were rolled out to the under 40s, more than 90% of those aged 60+ and 75% of those aged 50+ had been boosted. So I think the vulnerable were going to be sufficiently protected regardless of which direction we decided to go with the booster then.

And we did have good indications of it being a milder disease by that time. Omicron had already been identified in the UK 2 weeks before then, and it'd been in South Africa for over 3 weeks.

The goal of stopping the spread only makes sense when that's closely linked to hospitalisation, but if the vulnerable are sufficiently protected and disease among the less vulnerable is relatively mild, then stopping the spread might not be a legitimate goal. Having it spread to build broader and more durable immunity could be a net positive, if the risks are manageable. I think when these decisions were made we over-estimated the risks, we were overly cautious by choice. That's understandable and it's not much of a criticism, I'm just saying it could do a bit more harm in the medium term.

In the end I agree the evidence wasn't firm enough to make that kind of decision, but I really don't think the evidence was that ambiguous about hospitalisation risk for under 40s, protection levels for the most vulnerable, or severity of disease from Omicron, at the time they were announcing under-40 booster roll-outs.

Considering numerous experts are still - as of right now - not entirely convinced that omicron definitely causes milder disease than delta it’s a huge stretch to try and claim that the policy makers missed a trick by not assuming this was a certainty back when the decision was made to start boosting the younger cohorts.

And you also can’t divorce that decision from the ongoing delta wave, affecting all ages, at the time. Sure, the younger ages didn’t have all that much to fear from delta (although 0.2% hospitalisation rate is not to be sniffed at) but, again, these people weren’t living in a bubble.

And that’s without even getting into the tenuous upside of not boosting. That they will have better immunity next winter. It’s all about loading more and more immunity into the population, as safely and quickly as possible. Boosters are a no brainer in this context. There’s going to be an absolute shit-load of (almost all mild) breakthrough infections in the mix as well. That combination should leave us pretty well set for the next wave. And is far more acceptable to the public than choosing not to boost (with boosters available) and deliberately letting hundreds of thousands of people get avoidably unwell because there’s a possibility this might give them better long term immunity. I’ve known plenty of young(ish) vaccinated people get breakthrough infections that would be classified as “mild” who have felt like absolute shit and have taken a long time to recover (some of them still not fully over it) That’s really not a palatable choice to individuals if they could get a similar immune boost which gives them nothing worse than an achey delt for 24 hours.
 
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.
Unless I've missed some startling, revelatory studies, this statement just isn't true. If you want to say that over time the efficacy diminishes of something like that, fair enough, but this is complete hyperbole. Any multiple of protection when compared to nothing just cannot be deemed 'little effect'.
 
I've heard less and less talk of "long Covid". Has that not been the case as much with Delta onwards due to vaccination or changes in the virus itself?
Perhaps there is no way if knowing or maybe I'm just not seeing those reports.
 
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.

Totally agree.

On twitter especially it seems there are a number of academics, perhaps well qualified in what they do, who have become minor celebrities during the pandemic. I suspect in their field recognition is hard to come by and maybe they're enjoying it.
 
I've heard less and less talk of "long Covid". Has that not been the case as much with Delta onwards due to vaccination or changes in the virus itself?
Perhaps there is no way if knowing or maybe I'm just not seeing those reports.

I think it has just become normal. I've seen no data that suggests that long covid has become less of a concern, particularly in the unvaccinated.
 
Last edited:
Been having a lot of discussion with friends and family naturally over COVID and pretty much all of us are now boosted. Some have had COVID too and some (like me as far as I know) haven't

But a lot of them, especially people my age, are now saying that's it for them in terms of vaccines for at least a year. If after 3 vaccines and COVID (for some) is still not enough then nothing is. I was indifferent initially and was just doing what seemed to get this to an end quickly but it has made me wonder what is the end point and how much more people are willing to do
 
Been having a lot of discussion with friends and family naturally over COVID and pretty much all of us are now boosted. Some have had COVID too and some (like me as far as I know) haven't

But a lot of them, especially people my age, are now saying that's it for them in terms of vaccines for at least a year. If after 3 vaccines and COVID (for some) is still not enough then nothing is. I was indifferent initially and was just doing what seemed to get this to an end quickly but it has made me wonder what is the end point and how much more people are willing to do
I can see a lot of people thinking like this, eventually covid fatigue will set in if it hasn't already.
 
I'm into my third day of symptoms today (had a positive pcr test yesterday) and feeling quite rough now

I'm starting to get a bit short of breathe which is worrying, but had an old asthma inhaler lying around which did the trick

Are there any over the counter treatments which can help? I guess just all the regular cold and flu stuff?
 
I'm into my third day of symptoms today (had a positive pcr test yesterday) and feeling quite rough now

I'm starting to get a bit short of breathe which is worrying, but had an old asthma inhaler lying around which did the trick

Are there any over the counter treatments which can help? I guess just all the regular cold and flu stuff?

I think aside from paracetamol and ibuprofen there’s not a huge amount you can do apart from rest up and drink plenty of water. What I will say is when you think you’re doing better, rest more. A few times my girlfriend thought she was on the mend and tried to do a few bits like painting the wall or do some work on the laptop and she’d crash again. Rest up as long as you can.
 
I'm into my third day of symptoms today (had a positive pcr test yesterday) and feeling quite rough now

I'm starting to get a bit short of breathe which is worrying, but had an old asthma inhaler lying around which did the trick

Are there any over the counter treatments which can help? I guess just all the regular cold and flu stuff?

Short answer is no, other than paracetamol, to help keep fevers down and take the edge off aches and pains.

If you’re worried about your breathing could someone drop over a pulse oximeter? Most big pharmacists sell them. You can use it to monitor your blood oxygen levels. If they start to drop you may need to go to hospital to get some oxygen. This is very unlikely to happen but better safe than sorry.
 
I think aside from paracetamol and ibuprofen there’s not a huge amount you can do apart from rest up and drink plenty of water. What I will say is when you think you’re doing better, rest more. A few times my girlfriend thought she was on the mend and tried to do a few bits like painting the wall or do some work on the laptop and she’d crash again. Rest up as long as you can.

thanks for the advice

and yeah I thought as much, keep hydrated and lots of rest is all you can really do
 
Short answer is no, other than paracetamol, to help keep fevers down and take the edge off aches and pains.

If you’re worried about your breathing could someone drop over a pulse oximeter? Most big pharmacists sell them. You can use it to monitor your blood oxygen levels. If they start to drop you may need to go to hospital to get some oxygen. This is very unlikely to happen but better safe than sorry.

thanks Pogue

I'm not too worried to be honest, it doesn't feel too bad - probably just over-thinking things

but if it does get worse I'll ask my sister to pick one up to be on the safe side
 
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.

Do we know how long the immunity lasts after the booster?
 
I think it has just become normal. I've seen no data that suggests that long covid has become less of a concern, particularly in the unvaccinated.
Thanks, guess that makes sense unfortunately.