COVID COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[bhobba]

which a third shot for some vulnerable populations may help. In this point of view where we don't have to control transmission, vaccination is the way out of this pandemic.

Aus is looking at a third shot 6 months after the second for everyone, which is why it ordered 85 million Pfizer for next year. Preliminary, non published data suggests it boosts immunity enormously. In Sydney, the death rate from now over 3,000 cases is about .45%. The Asian Flu was I seem to recall .3%. With vaccination, we could be looking at a death rate much lower than the Flu. But there is that R0 of 5 compared with the Flu's R0 of 1.4-1.6. Do not know the R0 of Delta when vaccinated - hopefully, it is lower. Fingers crossed, when vaccinated we may be looking at a disease more like the Flu as far as fatalities go.

Thanks
Bill

 

[atyy]

Aus is looking at a third shot 6 months after the second for everyone, which is why it ordered 85 million Pfizer for next year. Preliminary, non published data suggests it boosts immunity enormously. In Sydney, the death rate from now over 3,000 cases is about .4%. The Asian Flu was I seem to recall .3%. With vaccination, we could be looking at a death rate much lower than the Flu. But there is that R0 of 5 compared with the flu's R0 of 1.4-1.6. Do not know the R0 of Delta when vaccinated - hopefully, it is lower. Fingers crossed, when vaccinated we may be looking at a disease more like the Flu as far as fatalities go.

But I think R0 is not relevant if everyone is vaccinated - especially if Australia is indeed giving Pfizer boosters?

 

[bhobba]

But I think R0 is not relevant if everyone is vaccinated - especially if Australia is indeed giving Pfizer boosters?

I think you may be right. If we get 80% vaccinations and Pfizer boosters, it may be good enough by itself regardless of R0. Others may be able to comment better than me. We must weather a tricky period before that vaccination rate is achieved and boosters are administered.

Thanks
Bill

 

[collinsmark]

The reference Keith McClary gave says even that's not enough. You have to control transmission. You can't do that just by vaccinating, since vaccinated people can still acquire and spread the virus. (In fact, if you can control transmission, it's not even clear that you need to vaccinate all or most of the population.)

You might want to take another look at the whole article. (link to article that @Keith_McClary gave a few posts back: https://www.sciencealert.com/freedo...the-risk-of-a-resistant-covid-strain-emerging)

Here's another quote that you may have missed from that article:

"Unsurprisingly, a rapid roll-out where everybody receives their full quota of approved immunizations in the shortest time would leave the deadly Coronavirus few opportunities to randomly develop antibody-resistant genes."​

Vaccines do control the transmission of the virus. True, there have been documented instances of "breakthrough" cases (i.e., infections among vaccinated people), https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html. But it's important to note that breakthrough cases are

• Comparatively rare (compared to the unvaccinated population).
• When it does happen, the symptoms are comparatively mild and the viral shedding is expected to be less.

In other words, the whole world would have to be in a hard lockdown indefinitely. I don't think any country or any significant number of people are willing to do that.

This isn't an all or nothing choice. There are positive things we can do without necessarily getting all draconian.

If you're reading this on PF, I'm willing to bet that you're respected among your peers, friends and family. Perhaps you've even been introduced as "I'd like you to meet <insert your name here>, he/she/they is one of the smartest people I know." Yes, people look up to you.

You can use this to

• Encourage your peers, friends and family to get vaccinated if they haven't already. They may just listen to you. This alone can have a huge, positive impact.
• If you're in a situation where masks are required (for the time being), put a piece of cloth over your nose and encourage others to do the same. They may follow your example.

A little bit can go a long way. We can beat this together.

 

[pinball1970]

Aus is looking at a third shot 6 months after the second for everyone, which is why it ordered 85 million Pfizer for next year. Preliminary, non published data suggests it boosts immunity enormously. In Sydney, the death rate from now over 3,000 cases is about .45%. The Asian Flu was I seem to recall .3%. With vaccination, we could be looking at a death rate much lower than the Flu. But there is that R0 of 5 compared with the Flu's R0 of 1.4-1.6. Do not know the R0 of Delta when vaccinated - hopefully, it is lower. Fingers crossed, when vaccinated we may be looking at a disease more like the Flu as far as fatalities go.

Thanks
Bill

That's the plan here too. 3rd jab before winter over 50s

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57667987

 

[atyy]

But it's important to note that breakthrough cases are

• Comparatively rare (compared to the unvaccinated population).
• When it does happen, the symptoms are comparatively mild and the viral shedding is expected to be less.

For the Delta variant, breakthrough cases are still usually mild, as protection against severe disease is about 90%. However, protection against infection ranges from 40-80%, and at the lower end of the range, breakthrough infections will not be so rare. And viral shedding may not be that much less.

Fortunately, protection from severe disease is mediated to a large extent by T-cells, and these don't seem to be so affected by variants (even if the T-cells are due to vaccination with an mRNA vaccine that only has the spike), which means we can hope that protection against severe disease largely holds even if protection against infection continues to fall.
https://immunology.sciencemag.org/content/6/59/eabj1750
https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2666379121002044

 

[mfb]

How is the fact of being vaccinated or not could give you responsibility for "many deaths"?

Not being vaccinated, not wearing a mask, coughing on others, ... is like driving significantly above the speed limit, or driving drunk, or whatever. Maybe nothing happens. But you increase the risk of an accident (you getting sick, and you infecting others) significantly. You do this knowingly and without a good reason. I think it's pretty easy to assign some blame (moral, not legal) on someone in that case.

Personally, I like the "you are responsible for your condition" philosophy.

You are responsible for being murdered/raped/robbed/...? If this is a joke it's a bad one. The alternative is even worse.

a 1 in a million risk of dying

I'm not sure the risk from the vaccines is really that low. That number would be typical for a vaccine that has been around for a long time, like the vaccines I and probably most posters here got as kids. But it's not typical for a new vaccine that is still in the trial stage, which all of the COVID vaccines are.

What would be a typical number for a new mRNA vaccine according to you?
If you do not have such a number, what makes you think it's larger than 1 in a million? And where are all the thousands of vaccine-caused deaths that we should observe by now if the risk is notably higher?

 

[bhobba]

There is a lot of talk here in Aus about what occupations must be vaccinated. So far, it is front line workers, e.g. police, doctors, paramedics, nurses etc. I agree with that. But should it apply to anyone else? What do others think?

Thanks
Bill

 

[pinball1970]

There is a lot of talk here in Aus about what occupations must be vaccinated. So far, it is front line workers, e.g. police, doctors, paramedics, nurses etc. I agree with that. But should it apply to anyone else? What do others think?

Thanks
Bill

They did high risk, elderly, care home workers and NHS as priority but not police and other 'front line' workers in the UK. Check out staff in supermarkets for instance.
High footfall in supermarkets and plenty not wearing masks for a 40 hour per week exposure all the way through lock down.
Just an opinion but I think that was wrong.

 

[jack action]

The responsibility is for failing to take action to protect yourself from the pathogen, thereby endangering other people.

What if I think I did everything I could to protect myself but you disagree?

You also said: "There are positive things we can do without necessarily getting all draconian." What if you did everything you thought was acceptable, but someone thinks you should go further, that you weren't "draconian" enough? Is it possible to be both acting responsibly (from your point of view) and irresponsibly (from the other person's point of view) at the same time?

Do we all have to act as the most draconian person there is in the group? Or does the most draconian people (wearing masks) should considerer the fact there are less strict people (not wearing masks) in the group and adapt their behaviours accordingly, i.e. being more "draconian" (stay at home perhaps?) if needed?

And if one thinks it's fair to force someone to stay home if he doesn't think he needs a mask but others think he should, then it should be also fair to suggest someone who wants everyone to wear a mask to stay home because others don't care.

If we, as a worldwide population, want to

Who is that we? I think it is ludicrous to consider every single person in a large group will agree on something. So 2 scenarios are possible:

• Most people think one way and few don't: The few have more or less no impact on the results, so nobody needs to worry about them;
• The minority is large enough to impact the results: If that is the case, then the we cannot apply and the discussion must remain open. Anything else is a dictatorship.

You can use this to

• Encourage your peers, friends and family to get vaccinated if they haven't already. They may just listen to you. This alone can have a huge, positive impact.
• If you're in a situation where masks are required (for the time being), put a piece of cloth over your nose and encourage others to do the same. They may follow your example.

I'm all for this. Spread your message as much as you like. Be a model for everybody else. It's the forcing part, I'm not comfortable with.

I don't see how not being able to convince someone - or worse a group of notable size - gives anyone the right to impose his or her will.

I also have a problem with the fact that logic seems to change when changing points of view. For example, It seems to be acceptable for an employer to force an employee to work from home if they don't comply with certain rules (ex.: not wearing a mask or not being vaccinated). I have no problem with that. But if an employer doesn't want to enforce those rules, we don't find it acceptable to suggest working home to an employee who doesn't feel safe in such an environment. It seems like having double standards to me.

You are responsible for being murdered/raped/robbed/...? If this is a joke it's a bad one. The alternative is even worse.

Well I know I am. I have door locks, alarm systems, insurances. I choose when and where I go based on how dangerous I think it is. I also choose who I hang out with based on their history. But I don't have a gun, because I believe they do more harm than good and have no use for them. So I don't have a gun to better protect myself.

Being responsible for what happens to you doesn't necessarily mean that you asked for it. It just means you do what you can to protect yourself under the circumstances and with the means you have. But I'm aware that luck is also involved.

I have never been murdered (obviously!), and I have never been raped. But I have been robbed many times and I have not changed my strategy a lot because of it. And if my environment would change, my strategies could change at any time. My actions are based on how much of a burden they are and what I can lose.

But the last thing I do - although I don't totally ignore it - is counting on everybody else to protect me. I certainly don't think it is their duty towards me. I have to earn their trust first, which can be lost at any time.

That is what basically any living creature does and has been doing for millions of years.

 

[PeroK]

That is what basically any living creature does and has been doing for millions of years.

And then along came something called civilization.

 

[pinball1970]

What if I think I did everything I could to protect myself but you disagree?

You also said: "There are positive things we can do without necessarily getting all draconian." What if you did everything you thought was acceptable, but someone thinks you should go further, that you weren't "draconian" enough? Is it possible to be both acting responsibly (from your point of view) and irresponsibly (from the other person's point of view) at the same time?

Do we all have to act as the most draconian person there is in the group? Or does the most draconian people (wearing masks) should considerer the fact there are less strict people (not wearing masks) in the group and adapt their behaviours accordingly, i.e. being more "draconian" (stay at home perhaps?) if needed?

And if one thinks it's fair to force someone to stay home if he doesn't think he needs a mask but others think he should, then it should be also fair to suggest someone who wants everyone to wear a mask to stay home because others don't care.

Who is that we? I think it is ludicrous to consider every single person in a large group will agree on something. So 2 scenarios are possible:

• Most people think one way and few don't: The few have more or less no impact on the results, so nobody needs to worry about them;
• The minority is large enough to impact the results: If that is the case, then the we cannot apply and the discussion must remain open. Anything else is a dictatorship.

I'm all for this. Spread your message as much as you like. Be a model for everybody else. It's the forcing part, I'm not comfortable with.

I don't see how not being able to convince someone - or worse a group of notable size - gives anyone the right to impose his or her will.

I also have a problem with the fact that logic seems to change when changing points of view. For example, It seems to be acceptable for an employer to force an employee to work from home if they don't comply with certain rules (ex.: not wearing a mask or not being vaccinated). I have no problem with that. But if an employer doesn't want to enforce those rules, we don't find it acceptable to suggest working home to an employee who doesn't feel safe in such an environment. It seems like having double standards to me.

Well I know I am. I have door locks, alarm systems, insurances. I choose when and where I go based on how dangerous I think it is. I also choose who I hang out with based on their history. But I don't have a gun, because I believe they do more harm than good and have no use for them. So I don't have a gun to better protect myself.

Being responsible for what happens to you doesn't necessarily mean that you asked for it. It just means you do what you can to protect yourself under the circumstances and with the means you have. But I'm aware that luck is also involved.

I have never been murdered (obviously!), and I have never been raped. But I have been robbed many times and I have not changed my strategy a lot because of it. And if my environment would change, my strategies could change at any time. My actions are based on how much of a burden they are and what I can lose.

But the last thing I do - although I don't totally ignore it - is counting on everybody else to protect me. I certainly don't think it is their duty towards me. I have to earn their trust first, which can be lost at any time.

That is what basically any living creature does and has been doing for millions of years.

Hi jack.
The science guides the policy.
That should be the base line?
PB

 

[jack action]

Hi jack.
The science guides the policy.
That should be the base line?
PB

I'm all for informing people with science. But if one cannot convince someone else with science, maybe the messenger is the problem and maybe someone needs to work on his argumentative skills; maybe even his people skills.

I prefer to believe that civilization brought us good relationships through the art of discussion, not dictatorship. @PeroK

 

[pinball1970]

I'm all for informing people with science. But if one cannot convince someone else with science, maybe the messenger is the problem and maybe someone needs to work on his argumentative skills; maybe even his people skills.

I prefer to believe that civilization brought us good relationships through the art of discussion, not dictatorship. @PeroK

The Romans arguably brought civilization to our shores with scribes and swords and it worked...
Anyway, containment. This is the thread, We have had new laws on social behaviour till cases fell.
The vast majority complied.
Are you objecting to what happens now? personal choice now restrictions are being lifted?
Vaccine related or more the social distance and mask wearing?
I will search Canada see where you are

 

[PeroK]

I prefer to believe that civilization brought us good relationships through the art of discussion, not dictatorship. @PeroK

What civilization brought is laws. At what point laws become dictatorship is perhaps a difficult question. The problem is with those who consider any law they do not agree with to be dictatorship.

The other important difference is the result of opposing those laws. In the UK we have people who are unhappy that they may not be allowed into night clubs and sporting venues without proof of vaccination - and are speaking out about it. They like to claim this is evidence of dictatorship.

Whereas, in a dictatorship, they would face arrest, torture and execution for opposing the government.

Ultimately, that's a weakness in your arguments: the lack of perspective in this regard.

 

[PeterDonis]

If you vaccinate everyone, and transmission is not controlled, things can still be fine as long as not many people get severe disease.

Not if the virus mutates and the vaccine does not give protection against the mutated variant. As @collinsmark pointed out earlier, the more people are infected, the more chances the virus has to mutate.

 

[PeterDonis]

What would be a typical number for a new mRNA vaccine according to you?

My rough estimate right now is about 1 in 10,000. mRNA vaccines are new so we don't have historical data on previous ones.

 

[jack action]

At what point laws become dictatorship is perhaps a difficult question.

No, it's not. Dictatorship is on when a state of emergency is declared with laws that basically state that a person or a small group "can order any other measure necessary without delay and without further formality". You might argue it is necessary, but you cannot argue it is not dictatorship. "Civilized" laws are meant to be discussed and accepted by a majority before adoption.

The vast majority complied.

So what's the problem? Is it because you think it's unfair that you have to wear a mask or get vaccinated and that someone else doesn't?

personal choice now restrictions are being lifted?
Vaccine related or more the social distance and mask wearing?

I personally chose to isolate myself. I don't have to wear a mask at home. I'm not even vaccinated. But I don't travel, go to restaurants, work outside, etc. and I'm fine with it. That was the choice I was given right? Obey or stay home. I refuse to hang out with people who live in fear. It's sad.

If everybody did what I did (and still do), this crisis would've been long gone by now. I don't believe masks and social distancing make a notable difference, only confinement really works. The waves always happen when they "let people out" (back to school, for example, or when they lift the restrictions). The 4th wave is coming this autumn and we all know it. But they always do all measures together, so it is hard to prove which one has the most impact.

But you see, by choosing to isolate myself, I don't fear for my health (It doesn't mean I won't get sick though, just like for anybody else). I don't need someone else to do anything to "protect" me. They can go dancing every night with a mask or not, it doesn't bother me. I adapt to my environment. Yes, I have to take a risk once in a while, but it is a calculated one (and I would probably take more if it wasn't for these emergency laws). Just like somebody wearing a mask lifts it once in a while because it is more convenient.

If others don't want (yes, it's a choice) to do what I do because they think it is too "draconian" for them, that is their decision and I'm fine with it. Even if I know it will take longer for us to get out of this. Even if I know I will have to pay part of the invoice for these ridiculous measures they impose. Even if I see the price paid by many in mental health issues that is way too much for me. But hey, that is part of living in a community.

Why can I accept that, and somehow some people (too many) are just frustrated because other people don't want to wear masks or get vaccinated. Because they want to go to the restaurant or on a vacation? Nobody is stopping them. They are only imposing this obligation on themselves, just like I do (or accepting someone else impose it for them). I still believe they are only pissed at the fact that they feel obligated to do something and they hate knowing that some don't suffer as they do. Some sort of weird vision on equity.

 

[AlexCaledin]

Relaxing of control measures such as mask wearing and social distancing at a time when most of a population has been vaccinated against COVID-19 greatly increases the probability of the emergence of a vaccine-resistant strain

https://www.bioworld.com/articles/509918-evolutionary-modeling-warns-of-covid-19-vaccine-resistance

 

[collinsmark]

Not if the virus mutates and the vaccine does not give protection against the mutated variant. As @collinsmark pointed out earlier, the more people are infected, the more chances the virus has to mutate.

'Just a bit of clarification here (in case anybody missed it): Right now there are zero, truly vaccine resistant SARS-CoV-2 strains. That includes Delta variant. Presently, vaccines are very effective for protection against all strains of the virus, including Delta. (It's just that the Delta variant is way more contagious overall. And never did any of the vaccines claim 100% efficacy in the first place. They may not be 100%, but they're still very effective.)

So yes, the chances of a virus mutating is (approximately) proportional to the number of people infected. But that's true for any mutation, not just potential, vaccine resistant mutations.

This other thing is (as discussed in the recent paper), that if the virus is widespread, and a large portion of the population is vaccinated, than it gives a potential, vaccine resistant mutation an evolutionary advantage. But that's assuming that a vaccine resistant mutation had a chance to form in the first place.

And that, my friends, is why it's so damned important to get this virus under control ASAP. And the best way to do that is to get people vaccinated immediately. Right now. Thus greatly reducing the chances that the virus actually does manage to mutate into a vaccine resistant strain.

 

[atyy]

Not if the virus mutates and the vaccine does not give protection against the mutated variant. As @collinsmark pointed out earlier, the more people are infected, the more chances the virus has to mutate.

Yes, but I'm not sure how much of a concern this should be. So far while the mutations mean a vaccine is less able to prevent infections (from 85-95% to 40-80%) and severe disease (from 97% to 90%, and in the UK's numbers, there is barely any drop after 2 doses), the drop in its ability to prevent severe disease has been much less. With the already endemic human coronaviruses, we expect mutations such that immunity from natural infection wanes over 1-7 years, but we don't worry too much about them, since they only cause mild disease. We are not quite at that point yet with this virus with a 90% reduction in severe disease, but maybe a 3rd dose of vaccine can get us back closer to that point.

Can we expect the drop in protection from severe disease to remain small despite further mutations? I don't think it's guaranteed, but it is a reasonable guess because protection from severe disease mainly depends on T-cells, and T-cell responses (even those resulting from vaccination with an mRNA vaccine) are negligibly affected by the mutations so far.
https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2666379121002044
https://immunology.sciencemag.org/content/6/59/eabj1750

 

[berkeman]

the most draconian people (wearing masks)

Thread closed for now.

UPDATE -- After a long Mentor discussion, thread will remain closed. Thanks all for participating.