Coronavirus Pandemic

[Dio]

Interesting. The change to reporting to include reinfections includes far fewer than I would have thought. I was expecting much more than 5% additional cases in the cumulative number.

[KlaxonCow]

To say that it's less lethal than, for example, Delta, you have to look at the data from countries that are not highly vaccinated.

I'm not saying you're wrong, it would certainly appear to be (thus far) less lethal than Delta in all cases, but you can't get that from the UK figures alone.

Yes, of course.

It wasn't stated explicitly in my post, true, but the other country would be South Africa, where Omicron originated. They're not highly vaccinated, compared to the UK or Western countries, but it was South Africa - and, specifically, the doctor who actually discovered the variant - that was reporting "milder" infection before it arrived in any other country.

Our brush with Omicron actually mirrors South Africa's quite well. A massive "flash in the pan" surge in cases, but not a correspondingly large rise in hospitalisations and deaths. The UK did better, in that our deaths graph barely budged. South Africa's reacted - because, as mentioned, not as well vaccinated there - but it still was the smallest peak they've seen so far.

Well, take a look at the graphs yourself:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... th-africa/

Mind you, even then, South Africa's had three "waves" before Omicron. So, you know, we can't speak for "not previously infected" from this alone. How do we know that South Africa's not actually quite well immunised - more than their vaccination rates would suggest - because they have natural immunity from catching it previously?

Yeah, you can't isolate every variable from just looking at graphs. Just as, well, even for one of my long posts, I can't cover every bit of data that I'm working from, in saying what I'm saying. Although, be fair, throughout this thread, I've been generally good at providing the graphs I'm looking at, the links to article I'm reading and all that. I do try to source my data and try to show the graphs and data to y'all, upon which I'm basing what I'm saying. Not perfectly so. But I'm better than most, as I at least always endeavour to try.

[Little stoned kiwi]

The NZ government has just reduced the booster shot time window from four months to three months.
I think they are scared and desperate.

[Dio]

To say that it's less lethal than, for example, Delta, you have to look at the data from countries that are not highly vaccinated.

New Scientist had a good article on it a couple of weeks back.

[NorthWay]

Norway just decided to cook the statistics by not requiring going to a test station for official tests anymore; if you test positive on a self-test at home you just isolate and follow protocol.
From now on the reports are focusing on admissions and that will be the new yardstick that governs our actions.

As of last night a number of restrictions were lifted. Distancing and masks still stand.

[merman]

Norway just decided to cook the statistics by not requiring going to a test station for official tests anymore; if you test positive on a self-test at home you just isolate and follow protocol.
From now on the reports are focusing on admissions and that will be the new yardstick that governs our actions.

As of last night a number of restrictions were lifted. Distancing and masks still stand.

And the British Government is to stop publishing daily death figures from April.

In other words, living with it means denying people are dying from it.

[rowan]

Norway just decided to cook the statistics by not requiring going to a test station for official tests anymore

It sounds to me as if many places aren't bothering with testing.

Talking to an Indian colleague back in January, he was apologising for some delay in replying as he'd been off with symptoms.
I asked "oh, was it covid?"
"no idea, there's no point in anyone testing here, you get sick, if it's some secondary infection you get antibiotics"

Similar story from someone in Brazil.

[PFVA]

And although the WHO and others have suggested that huge numbers of omicron infections could signal the end of the pandemic, because of the short-term surge in immunity that will follow, researchers warn that the situation remains volatile and difficult to model.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586- ... d-44210925

[KlaxonCow]

calling other people idiots [...] But I don't say you're wrong because you're a dimwit

I have never used the word "idiot" or "dimwit" here.

(Well, okay, maybe I've called Boris an idiot, at some point. But, in his case, that's surely just a statement of fact?)

I know I've not done that, simply because this absolutely is NOT my view nor opinion whatsoever. So I know I never said it, because I don't believe it.

I think what has wound me up is that you did, earlier, state that "herd immunity" would soon be reached, and I'm trying to get across - but you're seemingly not taking it in, and that's what's got me wound up (you know that thing where you try to explain something but that person is not registering what you're saying - note that this is different from listening and just disagreeing. But, like, not seemingly even hearing what you're saying at all to be able to agree or disagree) - that what Omicron has shown is that "herd immunity" is now impossible.

Let's recap and try it one more time, with a cooler head.

The concept of "herd immunity" is that a sufficiently high number of the population has immunity - either by jab or by previous infection - that the virus can't spread. It can't get anywhere, because it keeps finding immune people and it can't infect them, so that whole line of transmission just stops dead. And "herd immunity" is the point where the number of immune people in the population is so high, the virus can't now avoid decline. Nearly everyone it encounters is a "dead end", so the prevalence drops off a cliff.

It can't get a foothold. And viruses don't live long when they're outside of their hosts.

So the Omicron graphs are significant for the fact that, well, they show "herd immunity" to be impossible (at least as things currently stands - one other aspect about "herd immunity" often lost by the wayside is that it's a moving target, dependent on so many variables, and not just a static number of "reach 80% and everything's magically fine").

Because if there's significant "breakthrough infection" - and there definitely was with Omicron - then the vaccinated / previously infected are not, in fact, a block on the virus's spread anymore. They're not dead ends. So "herd immunity" cannot happen.

This, unfortunately, is perhaps not as surprising as it should be. After all, for different reasons - namely that it evolves too damned fast - there is no "herd immunity" possible for influenza. Note that Covid's closest relative - the common cold - also forever evades "herd immunity". If you think about it, then of course this is the case or the whole human race would have gotten "herd immunity" to these diseases centuries and centuries ago.

So, you know, talk of "reaching herd immunity" and "we're at the end of the pandemic" seems to be completely missing this crucial point. "Herd immunity" only works if the immune act as a block on transmission - acts as "dead ends" - but what the Omicron wave has made clear is that there is definitely a very significant fraction here where this is absolutely not happening, and the virus is "passing through" the immune to reach the unvaccinated.

I always said there was a terrible underlying logical problem with chasing "herd immunity". It's entirely possible that it cannot be achieved - the common cold and 'flu forever evade this. If mass immunity does not, in fact, prevent spread then it simply doesn't do what we need it to do.

Now, the good news from Omicron is that the virus has begun seeking equilibrium. But, again, while it's the inevitable long-term conclusion that it will find that eventually - natural selection - there's no guarantees on any individual mutation. It can double-back on itself, get worse, then decide to get better again. Hopefully, it does not end up doing that.

But the "bad news" from Omicron is that it's basically just shat all over our notions of "herd immunity" as an exit plan.

But, thankfully, if the first holds true - that it weakens to the point of ceasing to be a threat - then the second point is... well, I can't say "moot" because, like, influenza does still kill people and that's never a "moot point". But you know what I mean. If it just joins the ranks of the other "forever diseases" which evade "herd immunity", seemingly forever, but mildly so that we can reach an equilibrium state... it's not the best ending for the story, but it is an ending. It's not a "get the girl and ride off into the sunset" happy ending, but it does bring the movie to a conclusion and we can finally leave the theatre.

I think the flaw in the thinking here is another "substitution problem". We start with "those with immunity never get it again", so that means - we can substitute it with - "the more immune people, the better". And then we see Omicron's surge and think "well, that's a shit load of people, so if it's 'the more, the better', we're rapidly approaching everyone and this'll be over soon". BUT Omicron's surge also cuts at the heart of that initial assumption that "those with immunity never get it again", because Omicron's surge is so higher, as there's a lot of "breakthrough infection" going on. The immune not actually acting as a "road block" at all.

Mind you, it does still hold, in a different way, that "the more immune people, the better". Not because it will end this, unfortunately. Not for any "herd immunity" reasons. But just because, yes, if our collective immune system keeps up with this, then we have much less hospitalisations and deaths. And, in that regard, the jabs absolutely have worked brilliantly.

But if the immune aren't blocking, then this ends with the "whimper" of the virus becoming "milder" to the point of not being much of a threat anymore, and not with the bang of hitting herd immunity. Which, seemingly, from the Omicron graphs, is a futile hope that is perfectly unachievable.

[Dio]

No, you didn't use the words. But you obviously understand that saying to someone with a science background, who's taking his feeds from science literature and his own data modelling, saying I'm just another one of the sheep following the government line is equivalent.

And I'd be quite surprised if you can ever find me using the term 'herd immunity' because I think it's a bullshit term for a virus of this kind where long-term, lasting, non-infectious immunity is impossible.

What I have said is that there is no option but for us to be forever continually be reinfected by this virus. And that infection-avoidance methods are now largely a waste of time, although a few basic, non-invasive precautions such as masks on public transport certainly seem wise.

[merman]

No, you didn't use the words. But you obviously understand that saying to someone with a science background, who's taking his feeds from science literature and his own data modelling, saying I'm just another one of the sheep following the government line is equivalent.

And I'd be quite surprised if you can ever find me using the term 'herd immunity' because I think it's a bullshit term for a virus of this kind where long-term, lasting, non-infectious immunity is impossible.

What I have said is that there is no option but for us to be forever continually be reinfected by this virus. And that infection-avoidance methods are now largely a waste of time, although a few basic, non-invasive precautions such as masks on public transport certainly seem wise.

I agree that permanent lockdowns are not the answer.
But it is quite clear from the number of infections that relaxing Plan B/letting the legislation lapse at the end of January was premature.

Many retailers have been sensible and asked customers to keep wearing masks.
Transport should be the same everywhere.

The key now to living with the virus (oh, how I hate that phrase) is to continue to protect the clinically vulnerable.

[Dio]

The clinically vulnerable can't be protected. They are going to get it at some point and have to roll the dice on it. They need vaccinating and then, sadly, they're going to have to take their chance. They will get it eventually.

I said over a year ago that it's going to be bad for them and it's fundamentally an awful thing, but it was clear this was always the way it was going to be.

Again, the public transport thing makes total sense. But I now see scant point in lockdowns or restrictions except when the case rate generates issues with hospital load (almost all of which is caused by the selfish unvaccinated idiots, who ironically are the ones most likely to moan about lockdowns even though the lockdowns are entirely their fault). It's just wasting time everyone could be getting on with their lives and there's just no signifcinat gain since at some point everyone will get this thing.

[PFVA]

Around here it's being announced that restrictive measures may end in March, things such as mandatory masks indoors, Outdoors they aren't required for a while. However they are saying it depends on the numbers the next few weeks.

[snaff]

The clinically vulnerable can't be protected. They are going to get it at some point and have to roll the dice on it. They need vaccinating and then, sadly, they're going to have to take their chance. They will get it eventually.

They should have only vaccinated the vulnerable. That way there is less evolutionary pressure for the virus to escape the vaccine.

[snaff]

This explains why there is higher than expected non-covid deaths among the unvaccinated.

You get the jab. The jab kills you within 14 days. You're not counted as vaccinated until 14 days after the jab.

https://msyc1.wordpress.com/2022/01/26/ ... n-history/