Why bother unless it informs who you vaccinate first?
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Why bother unless it informs who you vaccinate first?
I can only speak from experience. I dont know how the UK implemented their strategy. In our country they sent the vaccination invitations starting from the oldest age brackets all the way down to the younger ones. The idea behind that was that the higher risk groups had more importance thus inviting them first for vaccinations. From that perspective i'd say it was crucial to have that data available of who to target first.
I am not so sure immune compromised have suffered most deaths. My own personal experience has been that the immune compromised have done better because they don't mount the aggressive cytokine release syndrome. I don't have data on that though.
People who have done worse are people with existing medical issues such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension etc.
All data isn't equal and you need to interpret it. You immunise the most at risk of adverse consequences first which we are doing or has been done and then you immunise the groups that are spreading it the most, which is the under 30's and at risk employment groups. None of this really needs data confirming that infection also creates immunity as we know this already. Unless you have a purely scientific academic interest, and that doesn't seem to be the case, it is only anti-vaxxers who seem to obsess about such data.
Last edited:
I believe the elderly have partly suffered so much partly because they produce a worse immune response on average, so maybe he is including all elderly people as immune compromised?
I have to correct myself. I used the term compromised immunity as a synonym for underlying health conditions, which is not entirely correct. I think the correct word to use is comorbidities.
In regards to your most recent post about all data is not equal I can say that I agree and disagree. Generalizations within the study of data can be made. The disproportionality in age and with/without underlying conditions is one of them.
The debate of vax vs anti vax is also not new. There was the vaccination Act of 1853 which made vaccination mandatory for enfants and that law was extended in 1867 to children up until 14 years. You had the anti vaccination league demonstrating against it. In the end science prevails and that is not even up for debate.
i actually do have a science intrest to such an extent that Im planning to go for my master of Interdisciplinair social science next year. Therefore I have to disagree with your statement that I don’t have a scientific intrest. English is not my mother language hence why I don’t post often on these type of threads.
Obsession over data could be a good things, it’s wether an individual manages to objectively research data, with certain principles and criteria to establish logical conclusions.
Last edited:
I did, but there are slight differences. You can have an impaired immune system through smoking and have less chances of getting serious ill then somebody with an impaired immune system through combordities (2 or more underlying health conditions).
you can argue that having an health condition makes you immune compromised by default, but this differs per individual.
But so what? It doesn't alter the fact that you need to vaccinate everyone, with the most vulnerable first, the biggest spreader next then everyone else - as close to 100% as is possible.
Last edited:
Low risk groups need to be vaccinated too simply because they can be among those who unwittingly allow the virus to spread to high risk groups who havent vaccinated or because of medical reasons cant vaccinate. The idea that low risk groups dont need to vaccinate is simply foolish.
So what? What is your point? What has that got to do with the need to vaccinate as close to 100% of the population.
We know vaccines aren't sterilising, like most vaccines, but we also know they hugely reduce transmission, symptoms, hospitalisations and deaths.
Have you read the entire article related to this video?
full article: https://www.politico.eu/article/herd-immunity-not-a-possibility-with-delta-variant/
what does the article state in summary?
for convenience sake let me quote from a recent article on Bloomberg.
‘Will we get to herd immunity? No, very unlikely, by definition,” said Greg Poland, director of the Vaccine Research Group at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
Even a vaccination rate of as high as 95% wouldn’t achieve it, he said. “It is a neck and neck race between the development of ever more highly transmissible variants which develop the capacity to evade immunity, and immunization rates.”
Full article:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ay-never-reach-herd-immunity-against-covid-19
Last edited:
He said vaccinating won't TOTALLY prevent adults getting infected. Today's Captain Obvious award goes to...
We know that the vaccines aren't sterilising, I may have mentioned this before, but that doesn't mean we don't need to vaccinate as close to 100% of the population as possible, rather the opposite as if it were a sterilising vaccine we could get away with circa 80% to reach HIT. Once the safety trials are ack for kids we should be aiming to vaccinate everyone over 5 years of age (or whatever minimum age the trials cover) and then probably a third shot of the Delta tweaked vaccines. We may still not reach HIT but even if we don't the massive reduction in transmission, serious illness and hospitalisations will be well worth it.
that is part of what the article states. The main point is highlighted as :
‘We are in a situation with this current variant where herd immunity is not a possibility because it still infects vaccinated individuals,” he said. “I suspect that what the virus will throw up next is a variant which is perhaps even better at transmitting in vaccinated populations. So that’s an even more of a reason not to be making a vaccine program around herd immunity.”
(End quote)
We are not debating against the use of vaccination here. One of the main points in the article is that herd immunity should not be the soil focus of governments in terms of the vaccine program. The need for boosters at this particular time also doesn’t seem warrented for now.
‘The time we would need to boost is if we see evidence that there was an increase in hospitalisation – or the next stage after that, which would be people dying – amongst those who are vaccinated. And that is not something we are seeing at the moment,” he said.
(End quote)
appreciate the conversation! , but I’d like to respectfully participate in in the award show you mentioned with mr Captain Obvious and submit you as Mr ‘so what’ (just some little banter)
I'm feeling quite bad about this and am glad that they are not on the forum.
I have answered this a couple of times but it is only fair I do it again in a mega thread like this, where it is easily missed.
Without meaning to I have made this out to be worse than it is. Their daughter though she tested positive is completely asymptomatic so though she has Covid, she is not feeling unwell or sick in anyway. She and my daughter are very close and have regularly stayed at each others houses, she feels like a member of our family and spends lots of time here so it's not like she would be dumped with strangers!
Finally they are a sensible and kind couple, rather than the callous fecks I may have represented them as and quickly decided to cancel their holiday anyway and isolate, so it was just a thought rather than an action.
This is one of those moments that has made me realise how easy it is to judge people on the internet and because a poster (me) hasn't given full context, it sounds alot worse than it is, we all say and think silly things, but rarely do them.
So @Santos J @jojojo @The Cat @Pogue Mahone @fergies coat @golden_blunder @McGrathsipan @Carolina Red and others you bunch of judgmental @#%&s
In our house both of my daughters have now tested positive, my elder daughter (11) has had a particularly nasty ride, continually throwing up every 30-60 minutes for 14 hours before it finally began to calm down yesterday.
Thankfully my wife and I are still negative, which I imagine is down to our vaccines (AZ) and hopefully it remains like that.
Struggling to understand what lazyred ninja is arguing or trying to research more?
Very clearly, getting infected with Covid19 and recovering gives your body the ability to generate anti bodies (at least for an year or so)
But getting vaccinations is significantly better compared to this method (logistically, you can plan and get the vaccine in your terms and making sure you don't spread it to unwitting population as there is definitely a time period where you are positive but symptoms don't show up. This doesn't even take into account the need for hospitalization, self isolation etc)
Age brackets and other factors don't enter into this decision and has no weightage at all. What do you need to research further on this to decide?
Very clearly, getting infected with Covid19 and recovering gives your body the ability to generate anti bodies (at least for an year or so)
But getting vaccinations is significantly better compared to this method (logistically, you can plan and get the vaccine in your terms and making sure you don't spread it to unwitting population as there is definitely a time period where you are positive but symptoms don't show up. This doesn't even take into account the need for hospitalization, self isolation etc)
Age brackets and other factors don't enter into this decision and has no weightage at all. What do you need to research further on this to decide?
Im not talking about herd immunity, Im talking about limiting the spread where possible. Its really quite simple.
Why obsess on variants. The more you vaccinate the fewer infections occur, transmissibility reduces, severity of disease reduces as do hospitalisations. Variants are essentially a statistical function of mass infection (not vaccination) therefore the faster we vaccinate the less the chance of new variants of concern arising. It doesn't mean we won't get another but it is the best plan to minimise the chance. It has also been shown that vaccination actively reduces the chance of variants arising over and above the reduction die to fewer infections. The article is in this thread somewhere. It is irrelevant if you formally aim for HIt as the best course of action is to vaccinate as many people as possible as fast as possible. If you happened to reach HOT then that is merely a bonus.
If there is no argument against mass vaccination why do you need to worry if HIT is reached or not? Immunise everyone and we may or may not reach HIT. Whatever the outcome it will be much better than not immunising everyone. The time to boost is when we find immunity is waning. The time to give a third shot is when we have a Delta tweaked vaccine to improve immunity against Delta. They are not the same thing.
Maximising vaccination is worth perusing irrespective of reaching HIT. In any case the higher HIT is the greater the necessity to vaccinate everyone including kids. The Captain Obvious tag was aimed at the author who summarises by stating the bleeding obvious again and again to back up a non-sequitur.
HIT may not be possible so quit vaccinating doesn't seem a sensible idea to me.
Hard to say for sure as he isn't saying outright but it sounds like he is looking for a reason to not immunise younger people.
And not vaccinating low risk groups makes no sense either. Combine every tool we have at every step gives us all a faster path to a new normality thats comfortable.
IMHO, We would have seen zombies or men getting converted to woman by now if he has any doubts
I hope you realize that this doesn’t mean she can’t give it to someone.
My original answer to her parents would have remained the same. Good on them for cancelling.
Good luck to you and yours getting through the virus.
@The Boy i understand they’re friends, I still don’t understand why they’d let her go to your house knowing that she is positive and even more if they know that yours are positive and sick with it, hence that you will need to focus on your own?
Second shot of Moderna done.
I got a slight fever and couldn't sleep on my left side for 2 days last time, so I'm expecting much of the same now.
I got a slight fever and couldn't sleep on my left side for 2 days last time, so I'm expecting much of the same now.
1st shot of Pfizer done. Very slight soreness in needle site but thats been it for the 1st dose. Expecting the 2nd dose to make me feel a little unwell based on what friends hae told me.
i.e. a reason to not get vaccinated himself
Wrong. I've never claimed that, at all. I've already made it clear (several times) that vaccination is vital to get this pandemic under control.
I am interested tough as this is the debate that is being had in the group that i am involved in. Do you believe from here now, that natural immunity is a thing of the past, specifically in regards to covid and the long term future?
Nope but immunity takes generations to build up, so it would be a hell of a mess to go down that route with the tools available.
I was entirely fine on both so perhaps you'll be ok too.
Not to mention that it’s not an either/or scenario.
“Natural” immunity will happen regardless. Either in un-vaccinated people (where there’s a good chance they will get very sick in the process) or in vaccinated people (where they’re a lot less likely to get sick and mild/asymptomatic infection will act as a long-term booster)
I know which category I would rather be in.
It's like the old seatbelt scenario, if you want to drive without one then crack on but your chances of survival are greatly improved by wearing one.
The problem with the 'natural immunity' rhetoric/crowd is that individuals simply do not understand the capacity of their immune system to say whether they will get mild symptoms if they contract it. Plenty of anecdotal evidence to say they will be fine, but it's looking more likely that the specific crowd chasing 'natural immunity' is the control group now.
I don’t know why people feel the need to argue it past that point. It’s pretty simple.
Why would anyone think immunity can't arise from infection? Why would you even ask that? Vaccination works because it used the same mechanism but without the mass deaths and other health damage of actual infection.
You still haven't made it at all clear why you are so enthusiastic about immunity from infection. Until you do you will tend to look like some sort of anti-vaxxer as they (and covid deniers) are the only people who want to discuss this endlessly to try to justify young people (or more likley themselves) from getting vaccinated for some bizarre reason.
The simple facts are that vaccination produces the same or better immunity overall (and better still when the tweaked vaccines arrive soon) with far fewer deaths, far fewer people infected, transmission reduced, symptoms reduced in the fewer people actually infected, better economic outcomes and health services avoid being overwhelmed. And that is before the moral considerations of protecting those who can't be vaccinated or have a reduced immune response.
Last edited:
My wife’s hospital system (there are 2 others in in the county - so these numbers aren't the whole story) had a peak of 546 Covid patients back in January. As of August 12, they have already had 304 cases. In January, 6.5% (24 of 546) of Covid cases at her hospital system were 20-39. This surge starting august 10 has 21.7% (55 of 254) of cases being 20-39. 40-59 jumped from 17.9% to 31.5%. 60-79 went from 52.4% to 35%. 80+ went from 22.2% to 8.3%. 91% of all current patients in this surge at her hospital system are unvaccinated (88%) or only partially vaccinated (3%).
…and our county sends 75,000 students back to school tomorrow morning with mask mandates made illegal by the state legislature.
…and our county sends 75,000 students back to school tomorrow morning with mask mandates made illegal by the state legislature.
What could possibly go wrong?
1st Community case since Feb here in little EnZed. I hope the govt dont feck around with this. I hope they lock Auckland down right away if they cant trace the case quickly. Im self employed and business has been really really good because we eliminated the virus. The faster we snuff out this outbreak the faster business can get back to operating at 100%
Tell me about it. The very rural county next door that only has 10,000 students shut down Friday after only being in school for 8 days. Why? Because they already had almost 1000 kids in quarantine.
I’m just curious for how long can people accept going on like this? Borders closed, lockdowns etc., surely at some point once a good amount of population is vaccinated you need to start opening up to the rest of the world? This virus is here to stay, unfortunately.
This is the first lockdown here in about 160 days. Life here is basically the same as pre covid and because the majority of us like that fact most people are wanting the govt to lockdown Auckland right away if the outbreak cant be traced quickly. We are pretty happy with our Govts response. We do have a plan to open up, thats going to start happening once we have the majority of the population is vaccinated which will probably be around December.