Covid-19 Wuhan Coronavirus (COVID-19) - Part 5 - Get vaccinated.

[Chief]

https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infec...d-19-vaccination-case-surveillance-051121.pdf

In the peak fortnight of the outbreak to date (25 August to 7 September), the COVID-19 case rate among 2-dose vaccinated people was 49.5 per 100,000 while in unvaccinated people it was 561 per 100,000, a more than 10-fold difference. The rates of COVID-19 ICU admissions or deaths peaked in the fortnight 8 September to 21 September at 0.9 per 100,000 in 2-dose vaccinated people compared to 15.6 per 100,000 in unvaccinated people, a greater than 16-fold difference.

 

[ChappyUK]

Because if true it could decimate large parts of the world literally killing millions.

Everyone is concerned.

What kind of a question even is that?

It's very rare if ever that a respitory virus increases its deadliness after mutating. Killing the host isn't really in the virus' best interest so they usually become more transmissible and less deadly.

It was mutations and not vaccines that ended the Spanish Flu.

It why I'm viewing this as good news, not news that things are about to get worse.

 

[Pessimistic]

Not trumpeted on every news outlet is WHO recommended countries NOT close their borders again in relation to omicron

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

It's very rare if ever that a respitory virus increases its deadliness after mutating. Killing the host isn't really in the virus' best interest so they usually become more transmissible and less deadly.

It was mutations and not vaccines that ended the Spanish Flu.

It why I'm viewing this as good news, not news that things are about to get worse.

You’re just trying to spoil his panic party

 

[mcnulty]

It's very rare if ever that a respitory virus increases its deadliness after mutating. Killing the host isn't really in the virus' best interest so they usually become more transmissible and less deadly.

It was mutations and not vaccines that ended the Spanish Flu.

It why I'm viewing this as good news, not news that things are about to get worse.

I hope you’re right, but that’s very much a theory at this stage. Plenty of infectious diseases around that have been both highly transmissible and highly virulent. I think we’ll have to wait and see what the data tells us. Couple of weeks of caution until we get more information the wise course here.

“Other evolutionary biologists disagree. The pandemic certainly faded as more people became immune, but there’s no solid evidence that OC43 itself evolved from highly virulent to mostly benign over the last century, they say. Even if it did, that does not mean SARS-CoV-2 will follow the same trajectory. “You can’t just say it’s going to become nicer, that somehow a well-adapted pathogen doesn’t harm its host. Modern evolutionary biology, and a lot of data, shows that doesn’t have to be true. It can get nicer, and it can get nastier,” says Andrew Read, an evolutionary microbiologist at Penn State University. (Holmes is blunter: “Trying to predict virulence evolution is a mug’s game,” he says.)”

How Viruses Evolve

Pathogens that switch to a new host species have some adapting to do. How does that affect the course of a pandemic like COVID-19?

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[spinynorman]

Not trumpeted on every news outlet is WHO recommended countries NOT close their borders again in relation to omicron

A big issue is that it was in a number of countries when South African scientists were the first to sequence it. It’s not at this point a certainty it originated in South Africa, but they’re the ones being named, the ones being met with travel bans and whatnot. It’s part of why the WHO wanted the move to names such as Delta and Omicron to be prevalent - targeting countries for announcing their findings only disincentivises the tracking of variants.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

A big issue is that it was in a number of countries when South African scientists were the first to sequence it. It’s not at this point a certainty it originated in South Africa, but they’re the ones being named, the ones being met with travel bans and whatnot. It’s part of why the WHO wanted the move to names such as Delta and Omicron to be prevalent - targeting countries for announcing their findings only disincentivises the tracking of variants.

According to this.
It was originally discovered in Botswana. South African scientists then went looking for it and found it. It is thought not to have originated from S.A. ( the newsatlas link shows an opinion that it has occurred in a location where the original covid ran rampant, and genomic sequencing was poor. ), but it has been responsible for some recent outbreaks there. But i agree with what you are saying about not shooting the messenger.

When you look at the numbers so far, its not surprising we don't know much about it yet. So all those experts telling us its harmless, or the killer zombie variant, are only guessing.

------------------------------------
On November 9, a specimen of SARS-CoV-2 was taken from an infected patient in Botswana. Genomic analysis quickly revealed this specimen to be a novel variant, initially dubbed B.1.1.529.
Scientists in South Africa rapidly tracked the emerging variant to a number of local provinces. It was formally reported to the World Health Organization on the 24th of November and two days later the WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on SARS-CoV-2 Virus Evolution (TAG-VE) officially designated B.1.1.529 a "Variant of Concern" (VOC), the highest alert category for an emerging coronavirus variant.
It was then formally issued the label "Omicron."
------------------------------------
In the case of Omicron, due to the extraordinarily robust nature of South Africa’s genomic surveillance system, a new and unusual SARS-CoV-2 variant has been caught before it has significantly spread around the world. Unfortunately, that also means there are no good answers right now to questions regarding Omicron’s transmissibility or disease severity.
-----------------------------------

What is Omicron, where did it come from, and how dangerous is it?

On November 9, a specimen of SARS-CoV-2 was taken from an infected patient in Botswana. Genomic analysis quickly revealed this specimen to be a novel variant, initially dubbed B.1.1.529.

newatlas.com

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

 

[SaintsSeptember]

We are probably best to ban travel from the USA.
Like we should have when the virus originally broke out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/12/23/us-leads-world-coronavirus-cases-ranks-43rd-sequencing-check-variants/

 

[Pessimistic]

So the strain which the world gets alerted to (there have been a few not alerted such) has its name omicron not xi (for fear of reference to china-understandable), but the full implications of Omicron are not fully known? if it wasn't to be alertrd such, ie one of the several strains not deemed to be worth alerting to - would the name xi have been used?

Its fertile ground for conspiracy theories. Plenty have circulated for less

 

[CD Xbow]

These types of stories are sad - UK vegan who refused COVID jab died of virus after begging for vaccine | 7NEWS
Please get vaccinated.

 

[owen87]

It's very rare if ever that a respitory virus increases its deadliness after mutating. Killing the host isn't really in the virus' best interest so they usually become more transmissible and less deadly.

This isn't a rule. Mutations are effectively random. Kill the host too quickly, and that mutation doesn't spread as well as one that kills them slowly. We're not talking Ebola here though, where people get really sick, really fast, and don't have time to spread it. The IFR is relatively low compared to the really nasty stuff out there, but that's what makes this a problem, it spreads too well and too easily, without making most people so sick that they can't function well enough to spread it.

Ebola burns through a population too quickly to take hold the way SARS-CoV-2 has.

A virus isn't sentient, it doesn't choose what direction it evolves in.

It was mutations and not vaccines that ended the Spanish Flu.

Sure. But first it mutated to be more deadly. If you got the first wave of Spanish Flu you were lucky, vaccines didn't exist and you had a better chance of surviving the first than the second.

It also killed 17 - 100 million people. In a less populated world. Our modern healthcare basically renders it minimally dangerous because we can vaccinate and far better treat those who are sick. We can treat the plague with a dose of antibiotics.

SARS-CoV-2 is doing what it's doing despite modern healthcare, and despite global efforts to lockdown and minimise the spread.

 

[Pessimistic]

This isn't a rule. Mutations are effectively random. Kill the host too quickly, and that mutation doesn't spread as well as one that kills them slowly. We're not talking Ebola here though, where people get really sick, really fast, and don't have time to spread it. The IFR is relatively low compared to the really nasty stuff out there, but that's what makes this a problem, it spreads too well and too easily, without making most people so sick that they can't function well enough to spread it.

Ebola burns through a population too quickly to take hold the way SARS-CoV-2 has.

A virus isn't sentient, it doesn't choose what direction it evolves in.



Sure. But first it mutated to be more deadly. If you got the first wave of Spanish Flu you were lucky, vaccines didn't exist and you had a better chance of surviving the first than the second.

It also killed 17 - 100 million people. In a less populated world. Our modern healthcare basically renders it minimally dangerous because we can vaccinate and far better treat those who are sick. We can treat the plague with a dose of antibiotics.

SARS-CoV-2 is doing what it's doing despite modern healthcare, and despite global efforts to lockdown and minimise the spread.

We also aren't in an era of stupid widespread mechanised warfare (Dutton etc willing)

We are also showing that many are giving themselves gold stars when much of the world is still largely unprotected

 

[Pessimistic]

We are probably best to ban travel from the USA.
Like we should have when the virus originally broke out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/12/23/us-leads-world-coronavirus-cases-ranks-43rd-sequencing-check-variants/

Travel bans have caused panic and increased the risk of people not distancing in railway stations or rushing from infected areas to non infected etc. it isnt always the safest thing to call

 

[Deliverance]

Travel bans have caused panic and increased the risk of people not distancing in railway stations or rushing from infected areas to non infected etc. it isnt always the safest thing to call

A bit like forcing people to shop in limited curfew hours.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Travel bans have caused panic and increased the risk of people not distancing in railway stations or rushing from infected areas to non infected etc. it isnt always the safest thing to call

Perhaps , but my point was, if we are going to have them, USA should be high on the list.
While they were banning flights from Europe to the USA during the original outbreak, infected people from the USA were getting off aircraft and onto cruise ships in Sydney.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

A bit like forcing people to shop in limited curfew hours.

How is it a bit like that?

 

[owen87]

We also aren't in an era of stupid widespread mechanised warfare (Dutton etc willing)

We are also showing that many are giving themselves gold stars when much of the world is still largely unprotected

Modern air-travel is significantly worse for spread than WWI era ships of soldiers.

But yes, were Dutton et al in charge I'm sure we'd still be living in a perpetual world of petty wars.

 

[Deliverance]

How is it a bit like that?

You end up with bigger crowds in public places and more likelihood of viral transmission.

 

[ChappyUK]

This isn't a rule. Mutations are effectively random. Kill the host too quickly, and that mutation doesn't spread as well as one that kills them slowly. We're not talking Ebola here though, where people get really sick, really fast, and don't have time to spread it. The IFR is relatively low compared to the really nasty stuff out there, but that's what makes this a problem, it spreads too well and too easily, without making most people so sick that they can't function well enough to spread it.

Ebola burns through a population too quickly to take hold the way SARS-CoV-2 has.

A virus isn't sentient, it doesn't choose what direction it evolves in.



Sure. But first it mutated to be more deadly. If you got the first wave of Spanish Flu you were lucky, vaccines didn't exist and you had a better chance of surviving the first than the second.

It also killed 17 - 100 million people. In a less populated world. Our modern healthcare basically renders it minimally dangerous because we can vaccinate and far better treat those who are sick. We can treat the plague with a dose of antibiotics.

SARS-CoV-2 is doing what it's doing despite modern healthcare, and despite global efforts to lockdown and minimise the spread.

Never said it was a rule.

Many see the way out of this pandemic being these mutations.

Until more is known I'll be hoping this variant brings us closer not further away to normality.

I've seen enough fear pr0n

 

[SaintsSeptember]

You end up with bigger crowds in public places and more likelihood of viral transmission.

But we didn't.
Shops were not more crowded than they are now.

 

[owen87]

Never said it was a rule.

Many see the way out of this pandemic being these mutations.

Until more is known I'll be hoping this variant brings us closer not further away to normality.

I've seen enough fear pr0n

Many don't know how mutations works. You can't plan for the random mutation that may or may not appear that's both significantly more transmissible than any other variant, but also significantly less deadly, such that it overtakes all other variants and results in fewer people in hospital all at the same time.

The more people that get it, the more opportunity there is for mutations to appear, both good and bad. You don't know what the mutations will be, whether they're better or worse.

What if the mutation is both more transmissible and more deadly, without being so deadly that people get too sick, too quickly, to spread it?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Given that there are places in Africa that have around 20% AIDS infection, there is a theory that someone with a weakened immune system may have contracted the original Covid strain and never been able to shake it.
If his immune system kicked in enough to stop him( or her ) dying, but not enough to ever get rid of the virus , it may have evolved/mutated within his body.

To my way of thinking, that would suggest that it would be highly resistant to immune systems, but not very dangerous, since a person with a compromised immune system lived long enough for it to evolve , and to pass it on.

So when he had his original virus, some of it was destroyed by the immune system, maybe a few variations with more spikes were not, and replicated. Over time the mutations that were likely to survive and replicate become dominant.
Its a bit like Darwin's theory.

More dangerous variants are possible, but less likely to be spread, because the host with the weak immune system would probably die.

 

[i like ram-man]

“Stuart got his spreadsheet on”.

The viral meme about UK vaccinated getting Covid more frequently than the unvaccinated, debunked by a bit of analysis of the stats.

Simpson’s Paradox explained:

 

[ChappyUK]

Many don't know how mutations works. You can't plan for the random mutation that may or may not appear that's both significantly more transmissible than any other variant, but also significantly less deadly, such that it overtakes all other variants and results in fewer people in hospital all at the same time.

The more people that get it, the more opportunity there is for mutations to appear, both good and bad. You don't know what the mutations will be, whether they're better or worse.

What if the mutation is both more transmissible and more deadly, without being so deadly that people get too sick, too quickly, to spread it?

It's almost like you are hoping it is worse.

Early indications is that it isn't so I'm going with glass half full atm.

I'm not going to stop you from doing you though.

 

[Clems Knee]

Never said it was a rule.

Many see the way out of this pandemic being these mutations.

Until more is known I'll be hoping this variant brings us closer not further away to normality.

I've seen enough fear pr0n

Fear pr0n? fear mongering? (in an earlier post). This is bizarre.

Hundreds of thousands of people dying around the world is a cause for concern. Pretending that isn’t real and claiming it is nothing to be concerned about by mocking those who are concerned displays a lack of empathy to the point of a pathology.

It is best policy to be cautious. Hopefully, this new omicron variant doesn’t bypass the clonal selection initiated by vaccines. Hopefully this variant isn’t more deadly to the unimmunised. Best to wait and see for a week or two.

Closing the borders to Southern Africa is probably not enough. Just as blocking passage from Italy but allowing passengers from the USA in the early stages of the pandemic was closing one stable door, but leaving the others open.

 

[i like ram-man]

You don't know what the mutations will be, whether they're better or worse.

If we’d thought like this from day one we might have saved a few million lives. Some countries are still pretending it’s just a bit of a chest bug.