Forum menu
Surely the virus will be constantly looking to target the weakest
its sentient now?
we're dooomed!!!!
It's been smarter than the government for a while
You set a low bar......
Its purely evolution on a fast scale. The virus doesn't care if it kills you or not. Whichever multiplies the fastest, survives the longest, infects you the easiest becomes the dominant strain.
The virus doesn’t care if it kills you or not
Not necessarily.
A virus that causes its hosts to die 10s after infection will not thrive, no chance to pass itself on. A Uni friend of mine now in US Pharma has suggested that in general and given time viruses mutate to become more infectious but less serious. They aren't out to kill us, just to take over (mwahahahah!)
you should pass that to JVT.
Thanks. I have.
Surely the virus will be constantly looking to target the weakest and at this point or in the near future
Not necessarily. We don't really know who is going to get the Bad-covid. There have been asymptomatic 90yo in nursing home and some seriously ill very fit athletes (one typing this...). If you get rid of it from your upper respiratory tract with some mucosal antibodies - induced by pre-vaccination o perhaps a past cold, all good. If it falls down into the bottom of your lungs and beats up the alveoli air sacs, less good. But what's causing that? Might just be bad luck, rather than being the weakest link. There are certainly some factors that are important - obesity, T2DM, CV disease, pregnancy... but it is NEVER so black and white as the media would like to portray. There are a lot of young people in hospital without comobidities. They may not die but they are taking the bed of a possible cancer surgery patient.
I read a very interesting article on virulence with time for a virus. There is some evidence to say this happens, but not always. Myxomatosis a case in point.
9:40 this morning a text from my GP.
9:42 first jab booked for tomorrow at 10:10.
🙂
Surely the virus will be constantly looking to target the weakest and at this point or in the near future that will be those who are not vaccinated?
If it was sentient then the best approach would be to avoid the weak. Better to target healthy people and just give them a minor case of the sniffles which, at worse, they treat with a hot toddy than start killing people and have a major investment in wiping you out.
Killing off your host is generally a bad thing but depends on the opportunity to spread beforehand. Something which kills fast is less likely to spread but something where it is asymptomatic but highly infectious for a couple of weeks before becoming lethal would spread well.
The major worry is that it mutates into a form that the current antibodies (whether from previous infection or from vaccines) dont work against.
So do we have figures on how many young (40 and younger) people are in hospital?
If this is increasing then, this needs to be put out there as looking at the current behaviour of the population, we have a scenario of vaccinated older people now thinking they are invincible, relaxing their guard and potentially spreading it to the younger population, who, historically have been not too bothered about getting the virus.
Theotherjonv: that's my point - the virus isn't sentient, doesn't think. Mutations aren't intentional, they are mistakes in cell division.
There isn't a virus god up there saying "hmm, that one was too deadly - lets try this one instead."
It appears to be happening in Israel, more young in hospital this time around. Could be the wording in the reporting, but it's slightly worrying.
Myxomatosis a case in point.
The rabbits evolved back to become resistant to the virus. An Australian lab kept the wild type virus. But they also bred the wild type rabbit to. How cool is that?
Myxomatosis is a mild disease in the species it evolved in, it was specifically introduced against European rabbits because of its effects. And it's different because it is not mainly passed rabbit to rabbit, it's carried by fleas and ticks which don't care if their feeding source is alive or dead, within reason.
That said, there are lower virulence strains known anyway....mainly in farmed rabbits (speculate - where they are more likely to have flea and tick control and hence that route gets closed off?)
more young in hospital this time around.
more young as a proportion of population - to be expected if the older ones are vaccinated; or more young hospitalised as a proportion of young with infection?
more young in hospital this time around
Absolute or % ?
Percent can be very misleading
800 old / 200 young is 20%
Because of vaccinations, skewed to the old getting it first, this now drops to 20/80, young now make up 80% of cases but I know where I'd rather be.
I'm trying to find the article. As I said, it was maybe more down to the wording that it sounded like more young are in hospital as an absolute number.
My girlfriend had her jab on Saturday morning. She was pretty unwell on Saturday evening and is still not 100% today but feeling much better. But the WiFi in the house is now much faster.
There isn’t a virus god up there saying “hmm, that one was too deadly – lets try this one instead.”
That's what they want you to think......
Had my second dose of the pfizer on thurs. I'm tested 3 times a week and been off work since the prior thurs on holidays. Live pretty rural and follow the guidelines.
Currently feeling like shit and been going downhill for a couple of days. achey, swollen painful glands, upset stomach. Just tested and negative still.
I suspect its side effects, I'd have been bloody unlucky to catch anything else with the level of contact i've had. Totally worth it tho.
If you fly from Brazil to Paris, then on to the UK you then do your quarentine at home, and have to get there first. It beggars belief that someone thought this should be allowed.
It isn't allowed. But unfortunately it relies on people being honest about their travel history on their passenger locator form, hence the draconian ten years imprisonment for lying.
You'd be brave to try this if you had a recent Brazil visa in your passport, but if you've been in Portugal, or have two passports then you can see how easy it is.
On the topic of indirect flights, surely in the 21st century we have the means to ascertain which countries an individual has travelled from? OK, maybe there are instances where you've crossed land borders unchecked. But any flight you board from anywhere in the world is recorded, right? So you then arrive back in blighty, they scan your passport in and up pops a list of every country you've visited in the past 10 years - or have I been watching too many Bourne movies?
But any flight you board from anywhere in the world is recorded, right? So you then arrive back in blighty, they scan your passport in and up pops a list of every country you’ve visited in the past 10 years
Shocking breach of someone's human rights.....etc etc.
Flaperon
Free MemberIt isn’t allowed. But unfortunately it relies on people being honest about their travel history on their passenger locator form
It absolutely does not.
Shocking breach of someone’s human rights…..etc etc.
I wasn't being serious about the 10 year history. But I would imagine they have enough history to know which country you've travelled from in recent days, and the power to access it within seconds? I would have thought that's a basic security measure. Genuinely interested in the answer.
I would have thought that’s a basic security measure. Genuinely interested in the answer.
No is the answer.
I would have thought that’s a basic security measure. Genuinely interested in the answer.
I wasn't being serious either, but yeah, would be interested to know what info is actually available.
Can anyone decipher the meaning of the new vaccine effectiveness figures released today?
In terms of tracking flights people have taken...
The data is available but to whom I don’t know. Data protection doesn’t really allow this information freely.
The police can access this data but it needs to be proportionate. Tracking a murder suspect? No problem.
Tracking someone for not paying tv licence? Not going to happen.
Tracking every person coming to the U.K.? I have no idea in the current climate but I’d guess not unless the government pass some sort legislation allowing it.
Some reading...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Border_Targeting_Centre
Passengers on flights entering and leaving the UK are screened by the NBTC.[citation needed] The airlines pass data (passenger name record, or PNR) on each passenger to the NBTC, including date of birth. The NBTC tracks former flights taken by each individual going back up to a decade, and determines whether an individual's flight history could be suspicious. Each individual is checked against criminal record databases.
It looks at the e-Borders Semaphore system for suspects. It looks mainly for rapists and murderers and pirates.
But I would imagine they have enough history to know which country you’ve travelled from in recent days, and the power to access it within seconds?
Ex-work travel brain on I would sorta say no. Most OTAs can't even link up a flight and hotel between brands they own when they have an email address, let alone store data for individual people across multiple locations. I have no clue how / where you would store this data and then have a backend / front end ui to search millions of people.
But I would imagine they have enough history to know which country you’ve travelled from in recent days, and the power to access it within seconds?
How could UK LE access flight details between third countries and under which powers? Direct flight into UK yes, flight before that if it’s a connector maybe if you’re lucky, pinging around the back end of no where on little airlines no.
So you then arrive back in blighty, they scan your passport in and up pops a list of every country you’ve visited in the past 10 years
Firstly, no. Secondly, some people have multiple passports.
TiRed
The vaccine should be viewed as helmet, elbow and knee pads. You WILL fall off. The damage may be mitigated by some protection. Everyone will catch this eventually endemic new virus. Not everyone needs some protection – some falls are pretty mild. But some will. And as any cyclist knows, you can’t always tell who is going to fall badly!
Just typed out a big rambling post to try and define my choices better in my own mind regarding Covid but it went nowhere so deleted.
Basically, ive got to decide when protecting my old mum instead makes her a prisoner to my concerns. To give her quality of life, to see her grandson and new great grandson (she has never even held) I am just going to have to take a leap of faith. I really don't like doing that but by "protecting" her for another year I'm really just depriving her of what gives life meaning. Without sounding totally "me,me,me" I'm doing the same to myself.
Nope, still not getting anywhere with this train of thought and feeling really conflicted still.
Thanks for the reply though TiRed, I'm never conflicted about receiving good information!👍
Basically, ive got to decide when protecting my old mum instead makes her a prisoner to my concerns. To give her quality of life, to see her grandson and new great grandson (she has never even held) I am just going to have to take a leap of faith. I really don’t like doing that but by “protecting” her for another year I’m really just depriving her of what gives life meaning. Without sounding totally “me,me,me” I’m doing the same to myself.
I feel for you. My parents are desperate to hug me and the grandchildren again. The teenage grandchildren probably less bothered.
Kids go back to school next week, parents get second jab early April. I'm taking the view that once that second jab has taken effect, they are as protected as they can be, and we'll do whatever we are allowed to do under the rules at end of May. The isolation has had a huge effect on both sets of grandparents this last year. They have all said they would rather take their chances at 79-85 years of age than gave another year like they've just had - assuming no major changes to the virus' mortality risk getting ahead of the vaccine, which TiRed is encouraging about.
I'll be honest, I won't be jabbed till April, so July/August for full protection to kick in. I've got at least the first half of the summer term to worry about the kids bringing it home from school, Scouts, Rangers, gymnastics, music centre, plus MrsMC working as a social worker. I really don't want to get shot so close to Armistice Day, to use that metaphor.
Vaccinations to be ramped up massively I heard in the news yesterday...
Great news from home this morning, my parents getting their first jab on Saturday. Huge relief. With my girlfriend and her parents vaccinated, that leaves me now.
Great news! Summer is coming...
poopscoop - what a dilemma.
My thoughts are; Wait until your mother has her second vaccination. You will be allowed in her garden (or any outdoor space) with her younger relatives by that date, then thrust you instincts. Maybe in that open space you'll feel its right for a hug, or, you may feel that them all being near her is enough. You can gauge the reaction of everyone in this scenario then.
Wait until your mother has her second vaccination
A first vaccination confers significant protection against morbidity, not necessarily infection. There has been too much focus on prevention of transmission and infections. Not unreasonable, given past experience of vaccines. But that's not how coronavirus vaccines are used in animals (and they are widely used). They are protective against serious (economic) disease first. You can learn a lot from chickens.
As to assessment of efficacy - PHE are looking at records from those vaccinated and those who are not. Following cohorts from digital records and counting events. Not a clinical trial in my normal sense. An observational cohort study. Data shows already that risk of infection goes up very slightly immediately at vaccination - you've gone somewhere there are other people, but then falls as immunity sets in. The reduction in hospitalisations is key here. This is what is keeping us at home. Seeing that fall due to lockdown, but faster than last year is very encouraging. But is it compliance? Immunity? Vaccination?...
Probably a mix of the above.
It seems (simple observation of data, not analysis) that the deaths are falling faster than cases & hospital admissions. That must be a good thing too, no?
I'd speculate that all would be falling faster than the extrapolated rate, but because the most at risk (ie everyone except teachers - sorry, couldn't resist) are being vaccinated deaths as a proportion of cases is now reducing as the cases are now proportionally higher in the less at risk groups. But that data would exist if anyone could be bothered to find it.
Hospitalisations may be trickier - because possibly people who weren't admitted previously due to lack of space now are being - so hospitalisations are more linked to capacity than need?
That must be a good thing too, no?
Indeed it is. Today's all-cause mortality has fallen too
Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2021 17,751 18,042 18,676 18,448 17,192 15,354 13,809
2015-19 12,175 13,822 13,216 12,760 12,206 11,925 11,627
So 2182 deaths above five-year trend, has almost halved in a week. This are registrations, but it's an impressive effect.
Am I the only one who thinks that the Govt have done a poor job clearly communicating what the vaccine does and doesn't do?
It's 3 months since the first dose and over 20M doses have been administered yet there is some confusion.
There's a fine line to tread between messages to boost confidence in the jab, both in terms of safety and efficacy, and caveats about transmission and the need for continued caution. At the moment I think that they (rightly), are keen to hype it up to maximise uptake in vulnerable groups. Which seems to have worked pretty well.
Once they are confident about coverage in these demographics, which should seriously reduce hospitalisations and mortality, perhaps we'll see more nuanced messaging.
Data shows already that risk of infection goes up very slightly immediately at vaccination – you’ve gone somewhere there are other people, but then falls as immunity sets in.
This was seen also in Israel but they reckoned it was due to idiots or the misinformed thinking they were immune as soon as they were vaccinated and doing things like hugging grand kids straight away. I don't think our government are doing enough to educate people their behavior mustn't change just because they have been vaccinated and especially shouldn't change within 3 weeks after vaccination.
perhaps we’ll see more nuanced messaging
They'll also know more... confidence about what the vaccine(s) can do is increasing all the time.
We are very straight with people when vaccinating them that they must still follow the rules and have no protection for 2 weeks minimum.