Covid-19 Pandemic - The New Hope

[Flet]

I'm beginning to wonder if we should re-name this thread, or start a new one - Covid-19 Pandemic, Groundhog Day.

I think making a new one is a good idea (and have done so) but for some reason I can't close this one. Could one of t'other mods do that? Many thanks in advance

[Ming]

I'm beginning to wonder if we should re-name this thread, or start a new one - Covid-19 Pandemic, Groundhog Day.

[conneem]

I would suggest that having all these new virus swimming around your system, even though they may protect you from coronavirus , may not be a good thing for ones health.
They are foreign bodies, not in any way measured or properly researched or under stood.

Remeber what happend with using asbestos.
( laymans example)

This virus would just be one of many in or on our bodies. Although in this instance, by chance (or not ), it is a tricky one for our systems to handle.

There's still a lot we don't know or understand about our interactions with the world and how we have evolved to handle everything that's floating around in nature.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...nd-herpesvirus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_virome

[Rennwagen]

If you've had covid and then got vaccinated later, there's a chance you may become super-immune to a wide range of Coronaviruses. Now I don't think this means it's a good idea to actually try get Covid, then vaccinated, because you've no idea how that'll pan out and no, what doesn't kill you doesn't make you stronger, but it could lead to some better treatments/vaccines that could protect us against even future pandemics if we can figure out the mechanism.

COVID super-immunity: one of the pandemic’s great puzzles (nature.com)

I would suggest that having all these new virus swimming around your system, even though they may protect you from coronavirus , may not be a good thing for ones health.
They are foreign bodies, not in any way measured or properly researched or under stood.

Remeber what happend with using asbestos.
( laymans example)

[cibo]

Perspective from the K, apparently directly from the coalface.....:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-wearing-thin

[crank_case]

For clarity, I would count anyone who has had covid in the past 9 months as equivalent to a vaccinated person.

If you've had covid and then got vaccinated later, there's a chance you may become super-immune to a wide range of Coronaviruses. Now I don't think this means it's a good idea to actually try get Covid, then vaccinated, because you've no idea how that'll pan out and no, what doesn't kill you doesn't make you stronger, but it could lead to some better treatments/vaccines that could protect us against even future pandemics if we can figure out the mechanism.

COVID super-immunity: one of the pandemic’s great puzzles (nature.com)

[kdevitt]

I havent read the report, just basing my post on hearing the interview he did about it. He reckoned it was the biggest ever sample size for a study into an infectious disease and that the figures put any doubts to bed as to the impact of vaccination etc Ill have a look at those links, thank you

I don't know report what Luke O'Neill is referring to - I change channel once I see his mug appear - but I suspect a lot of the older studies are practically worthless now as they were primarily based on alpha and beta strains, whereas delta seems to be significantly more tricky. I think it'll become clearer over the next few months.

[SJ]

Does it really though SJ?

When making that statement are you taking into account that a huge proportion of vaccinated and unvaccinated alike, have already had covid and have antibodies and therefore natural immunity regardless of their vaccination status.

This is not a pro or anti vax sentiment. As actually I am pro vax, and absolutely pro personal choice. I am anti bs, however (not implying you are btw, but I feel there is plenty of it around that should be challenged and dissected)

For clarity, I would count anyone who has had covid in the past 9 months as equivalent to a vaccinated person.

[el_marko]

You're looking at it from the perspective of a vaccinated person. Unvaccinated meeting other unvaccinated is the big problem -that drives bad outcomes.

Does it really though SJ?

When making that statement are you taking into account that a huge proportion of vaccinated and unvaccinated alike, have already had covid and have antibodies and therefore natural immunity regardless of their vaccination status.

This is not a pro or anti vax sentiment. As actually I am pro vax, and absolutely pro personal choice. I am anti bs, however (not implying you are btw, but I feel there is plenty of it around that should be challenged and dissected)

[SJ]

But not exactly significant enough to separate the very few unvaccinated from the rest of mankind. It's a complete irrelevance in the real world with 94% vaccinated. The phase of the moon and the direction of the wind are probably about as important. But let's keep the illusions going like I said seeing as they bring some convenience. I suspect hospitality don't mind it either as it gives their customers the sense that it's very safe to go out to a restaurant etc.

You're looking at it from the perspective of a vaccinated person. Unvaccinated meeting other unvaccinated is the big problem -that drives bad outcomes.

[DMZ]

But not exactly significant enough to separate the very few unvaccinated from the rest of mankind. It's a complete irrelevance in the real world with 94% vaccinated. The phase of the moon and the direction of the wind are probably about as important. But let's keep the illusions going like I said seeing as they bring some convenience. I suspect hospitality don't mind it either as it gives their customers the sense that it's very safe to go out to a restaurant etc.

[SJ]

*Fixed that for you, before some people find it confusing.

Thanks Deltona

[SJ]

Was this the Lancet publication?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...648-4/fulltext

That paper seems to suggest that in the household environment, the secondary attack rate (probability of someone else in the household getting infected) was 25% for vaccinated households vs 38% for unvaccinated households. Not a massive difference on the face of it put applied on a population level it is significant.

I posted this pages back. Two things - 38% vs 25% is actually a 50% difference. One in four Vs more than one in three.

However I don't believe that the sample size was large enough in that study for this difference to be statistically significant so I wouldn't base my conclusions on it.

[mikerd4]

I havent read the report, just basing my post on hearing the interview he did about it. He reckoned it was the biggest ever sample size for a study into an infectious disease and that the figures put any doubts to bed as to the impact of vaccination etc Ill have a look at those links, thank you

[DMZ]

I’m assuming this research takes time since double vaccinated into consideration? Because I believe that has a pretty big impact on likelihood of getting it and passing it on but not that big an impact on reducing likelihood of a poor outcome. Ie antibody defence vs T cell defence.