COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)

  • Thread starter baldgye
  • 13,285 comments
  • 641,926 views
Famine
The government is to blame for confusing messaging, seemingly inconsistent restrictions (which have seemed to be aimed at reducing crowds as much as possible while not killing businesses), and incredibly slow reactions - they absolutely should have overstepped their bounds and told PHE what to do with ports in February, not let them do nob all until August...

... but they're not to blame for conspiracy-touting, anti-science, contrarian imbeciles, like this asshat and everyone who voted "no":



People don't think rules apply to them, because they have the emotional intelligence of a typical 13-year old.
Click to expand...


OK. I wasn't familiar with Christoper Snowdon, but just happened to look at the Twitter thread.

Screen Shot 2020-12-19 at 1.00.48 PM copy.jpg


This links to the BMJ article on Covid risk.

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259

The figures are based on early days in the pandemic, so I don't know how accurate they are at this point. I'm not sure what Snowdon's point is. Is he thinking that the article indicates that Covid 19 risk is the same as "normal" risk of dying we all face - ie. it doesn't change the risk? The article is fairly complicated. The graph accompanying it shows "normal risk" & the additional risk. The point, as I understand it, is that risk of dying from Covid tracks "normal" risk of death fairly closely, increasing exponentially with age in a surprisingly consistent way.

"For those over 55 who are infected with covid-19, the additional risk of dying is slightly more than the “normal” risk of death from all other causes over one year, and less for under 55s."

I'm not clear from his response if Snowdon actually read the article, or is simply minimizing the additional risk? Anyone care to comment on this?

F1.medium.jpg
 
Last edited:
Touring Mars
As I said to my Mum and sister, I'm more upset by all the family dinners I've missed since July, and our planned Xmas events are just a few more to add to that list.

Of course, the Xmas and NY period is different - there's no getting around that; but they are not more important than each other's wellbeing, and that's what needs to take priority.
Click to expand...

I know you're not insinuating such, but i'm not having a go at you either TM. Good on you for valuing your family's and friends wellbeing above all else.
I've made sacrifices over these past months, and will be over the Christmas period too, so i can appreciate that it's not the easiest thing to do.

As for Domino's delivering on Christmas day? They've got to haven't they?
 
Nessy
Apologies if you think i was painting what you said as being selfish. That wasn't the aim of my mini-rant.

I'm more frustrated with the attitude of the population in general, seeing 'Christmas' as something that cannot be messed with.
I think people just need to get a grip, and realise that Covid doesn't give a 🤬 about our traditional festive celebrations, with our families and friends.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry too then, for having a hair trigger. As you can tell, I'm a little angry about all of it! Granted, some blame falls on selfish people both for demanding xmas and being lax about the rules up to now (particularly since the summer). But IMO more blame lies with the politically chosen route to apply as few restrictions as possible and have schools and universities start term in September. This set a tone that politics is more important than the data (that showed alarming rises in student cases straight away). Not that Kier had any better ideas - a 'firebreak' lockdown in Sept without addressing the source would have had virtually no effect (Nov's lockdown only had a limited effect, and that only because the virus had spread from those student cases in Sept)... IMO.

The new strain obviously adds a extra factor forcing the latest decision, but let's be honest, if prevalence rates had been properly kept down since Sept we would have had a much better chance of it not having developed by now.

Granted, I don't have answers that would be politically palatable either - even closing schools a week early brought threats of court action from the PM, just a few days ago!! In hindsight, term could've started early, had a long half-term as a firebreak, then ended early to provide a long firebreak over xmas. Sadly only the summer holiday is long enough for that to be at all practical. All other options mean children missing out on in-person schooling, meaning parents have to look after children rather than work, etc.

Outspacer
What does any of this mean for Christmas? In terms of the statistical overall case numbers, IMO not much - the number of contacts will be far fewer than in schools, for example, and the holidays will provide a break in multiple transmission routes. But for grandparents who have kept themselves safe all year it's a huge risk, with around 2% of their grandchildren currently having the virus.
Click to expand...

Even with the new strain I'd still rank the risk from xmas gatherings much lower than failing to provide a decent firebreak to halt transmission in schools. I'm angry that the measures aren't being targetted in an appropiate way according to the data.
 
Biggles
OK. I wasn't familiar with Christoper Snowdon, but just happened to look at the Twitter thread.

View attachment 979240

This links to the BMJ article on Covid risk.

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259

The figures are based on early days in the pandemic, so I don't know how accurate they are at this point. I'm not sure what Snowdon's point is. Is he thinking that the article indicates that Covid 19 risk is the same as "normal" risk of dying we all face - ie. it doesn't change the risk? The article is fairly complicated. The graph accompanying it shows "normal risk" & the additional risk. The point, as I understand it, is that risk of dying from Covid tracks "normal" risk of death fairly closely, increasing exponentially with age at a surprisingly consistent way.

"For those over 55 who are infected with covid-19, the additional risk of dying is slightly more than the “normal” risk of death from all other causes over one year, and less for under 55s."

I'm not clear from his response if Snowdon actually read the article, or is simply minimizing the additional risk? Anyone care to comment on this?

View attachment 979241
Click to expand...

If in doubt, assuming that it's downplaying is usually a safe bet.

Just from a quick glance, I suspect it is deliberately ignoring the fact that the additional risk of dying from COVID is itself an additional risk, and the more honest way to look at it is that everyone is roughly twice as likely to die. It further appears to ignore that restrictions are in place, lowering the COVID deaths. I could be wrong in the detail but I don't feel it warrants much time spent looking at! (Obviously (?) I mean the twitter post, not the BMJ article which I'm assuming is rational).
 
Last edited:
Here's some more information on the Pfizer vaccine "shortage"

Pfizer Says Millions Of Vaccine Doses Are Ready, But States Say Shipments Were Cut

This is purely speculative and not something I have any hard proof of, but it is something that makes sense and something my co-workers and I were chatting about today. What if the US government, and more specifically the Trump administration, is purposely not communicating with Pfizer because it wants the Moderna vaccine to be the preferred one?

We came to this conclusion based on Moderna being part of "Operation Warp Speed" and Pfizer not being apart of it. Trump, and his administration, can't claim a victory for something they had no part in (OK that's a lie, they will claim victory). With Moderna, they can absolutely claim a victory and even have the evidence to back it up.

I'd like to think those in Washington aren't this callus. I mean I know they are callus to a degree, but denying a major medical breakthrough that will greatly reduce the impact of the pandemic seems too slimy even for them. On a certain level, it makes sense though.

I also have to wonder if more people have investments in Moderna than Pfizer among politicians. If they do, it would also make sense that they would want to derail the Pfizer distribution and promote the Moderna one.

Like I said, it's all purely speculative, but we've talked to Pfizer reps and they've all said the same thing: they are waiting on direction from the federal government as to where to send the doses. Pfizer has repeatedly assured us that it has the stockpile and that there aren't any production or distribution issues. They did say that holiday shipping could cause a slight delay, but we're talking about a shipment coming on a Wednesday instead of a Tuesday.

I'm not sure what the exact reasoning behind all this is either. If it was just blue states being denied, I'd say it was absolutely Trump's doing since that's right up his alley. But states like Utah and Idaho are incredibly red, so that's not it.

Using Occam's Razor, I'd say the most plausible explanation is that those in the government are just useless bureaucrats who love red tape. But I can't help shake the feeling that there's something more sinister at play here.

Have other countries reported a delay in shipments? I'm not sure where the Pfizer vaccine is all being distributed and I forgot to ask the rep that question (I'm not sure if they'd answered it). If other countries are fine and the US is the outlier, I'd almost have to think it's to do with the people in power being terrible with everything that they do and being more focused on the upcoming holiday than actually wanting to work.
 
Not sure about sinister, but it's a huge failing regardless. The army general in charge of distributing Covid vaccines in the US has admitted he failed over the initial number of doses promised to states, but I'm not familiar enough with the figures to know if the revisions mentioned there actually sort out the mess or not.

In the UK I think about 350k have had their first shot of the pfizer vaccine, a little below target (500k?) but close enough that nobody is complaining. I'm assuming the shipments came in similarly close to expected.

---

The AZ vaccine is expected to be authorized here towards the end of the month (28th/29th), really hoping the rollout for that one goes smoothly. So much easier to transport and get into care homes etc.
 
Oh, so it was just someone not doing their job? Colour me surprised that a high ranking government official can't get their crap together. You'd think someone who's in the military would be accustom to rigorous procedures, but I guess not.

Still, assuming what Gen. Perna is saying is true, then it's way better than the other possibilities. Hopefully, whatever he's doing to fix the problem gets done quickly and before the holiday break.
 
Add to that the fact that the Trump administration passed up the chance to pre-order millions more doses, and instead Pfizer made contracts with other countries ahead of the US, meaning that a shortage or at least a slowdown in supply of the Pfizer vaccine to the US was all but inevitable.

The Pfizer vaccine also presents more headaches in terms of supply because it needs to be kept at -70 deg C until it reaches the point of use, which is not the case for other vaccines.
 
Well that process came to fruition even before Brexit itself ... for 48 hours at least. That is, until we know whatever will be decided by the European Council. The Council meets tomorrow morning to decide on a possible coordinated action by the EU-27.
 
novcze
not zombies yet, but it's time to isolate the UK anyway with their new virus mutation which is up to 70% more transmissible. Experts say a vaccine should be still effective, but I would isolate the UK just to slow its spread into the EU.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...k-says-new-covid-mutatation-is-out-of-control
Click to expand...
Too late. First confirmed case of new variant in Italy today. 2200 flights out of the UK yesterday. It'll be around the world in the next few weeks.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how the vaccine will protect against the new strain? I'll have to ask that question tomorrow and see what's we're doing to plan for it. Based on what I've read the new strain is more infectious, but less harmful, is that true? I'd almost rather that be the case. I know having some more infectious isn't a good thing, but I'd rather people just be sick and at home than sick and in the hospital.
 
Joey D
I wonder how the vaccine will protect against the new strain? I'll have to ask that question tomorrow and see what's we're doing to plan for it. Based on what I've read the new strain is more infectious, but less harmful, is that true? I'd almost rather that be the case. I know having some more infectious isn't a good thing, but I'd rather people just be sick and at home than sick and in the hospital.
Click to expand...
Early data shows it is more infectious, but there is no info yet available on whether it is any more or less dangerous.

There is also some evidence that this new strain is quickly becoming the dominant strain, out-competing older strains because it is more infectious... but it might also stand to reason that it is becoming more infectious as a result of being less harmful - but time will tell.

As for the vaccines, the efficacy of different vaccines will probably be affected differently - I would imagine that adapting an mRNA vaccine (like the Pfizer vaccine) should be relatively easy/quick, but other vaccines may also be relatively easily adapted as well. The big question is whether the existing vaccine(s) will still be as effective - I sincerely hope it is given that nationwide vaccination will take months (or even years) but the virus is rapidly adapting too.
 
I think in theory the vaccines should still work, since the bits of it that antibodies are trained to identify are still there.

Not seen or heard anything solid about whether the new strain is more or less harmful, I guess we'll all know in a couple of weeks :( Can but hope that it's similar to previous viruses that have become less dangerous as they became more transmissable.

I really don't know enough about it to say, but could there be a tradeoff - the more specific a vaccine is, the less able it would be against variants? (and an obvious follow on Q - are the mRNA ones more specific than others in a way that might lead to that trade-off?)

Even if they can rejig a vaccine, it still has to start from scratch with testing and approval, taking valuable time, so our best hope would be that at least one of the vaccines still works.

That said, while this new strain is clearly more easily transmitted, I don't think the figures given for how much more are much better than guesswork at this point.
 
This might interest some here. Published back in August (but found on Reddit today), I guess at the time, there were 6 identified strains. According to this, the original strain out of Wuhan was the L-strain, and appears to be nearly extinct now alongside the S-strain & V-strain which are only found in certain areas. What we've been seeing most of is the G-strain & its 2 mutations, GH & GR. The article states the virus has little variability which was good news for vaccine developers.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200803105246.htm
 
Last edited:
France/UK border now closed. Right before Christmas. Get your Christmas food shopping in today folks because the shelves could be empty in a day or two.
 
Stupid questions but isn't it possible to create a vaccine or something that prevents a virus from mutating? Or is mutation a good thing because a mutated virus could become less and less harmful?
 
Viruses will always mutate - if not in humans, then in another species... so there's nothing we can do about that.

Mutations are totally random and most will have no noticable effect at all - but some may make the virus a bit less harmful overall, but others will be worse. At the moment, we are dealing with multiple strains with different properties, but no clear idea of which, if any, are more or less harmful (or dangerous) than others. Higher transmissiblitiy (as has been suggested by the current data on the new variant) may or may not be a good thing - it depends on whether the variant is more or less harmful or, as is likely, is no different in terms of clinical outcomes. That being said, if a new variant is no different in terms of how it affects people but spreads faster, then that fact alone makes it worse than previous strains.
 
kikie
Stupid questions but isn't it possible to create a vaccine or something that prevents a virus from mutating?
Click to expand...

A live virus in a host will always have the potential to mutate and will in fact likely produce many instantly-unviable mutations until one really sticks. The only way to stop that process is to stop people from hosting the virus, and to do that you isolate or vaccinate.

Outspacer
I think in theory the vaccines should still work, since the bits of it that antibodies are trained to identify are still there.
Click to expand...

Yep, as I understand it different dev vaccines use some very different methods to deliver the trigger that generates appropriate antibodies. The advice seems to be (so far) that the core nature of the Coronavirus remains unchanged enough that the majority of these (at least) will still trigger the creation of working antibodies regardless of the specific strain.

EDIT: Tree'd far more succinctly by @Touring Mars
 
Last edited:
Daz555
France/UK border now closed. Right before Christmas. Get your Christmas food shopping in today folks because the shelves could be empty in a day or two.
Click to expand...
Holy crap. :scared: In NL we also cancelled all air/sea travel to/from the UK, but at least we made an exception for freight. This decision from France will cause a run for the stores for sure.
 
Last edited:
NLxAROSA
Holy crap. :scared: In NL we also cancelled all air/sea travel to/from the UK, but at least we made an exception for freight. This decision from France will cause a run for the stores for sure.
Click to expand...
It looks like the French government are already acting to prevent some disruption, but there's not much detail on what that means... either way, this is going to be a bad day to be a lorry driver in the UK.

Meanwhile, spare a thought for the poor buggers in Denmark whose job it is this week to dig up the rotting (and exploding) corpses of millions of mink they attempted to bury a few weeks ago. :ill:
 
Last edited:
NLxAROSA
Holy crap. :scared: In NL we also cancelled all air/sea travel to/from the UK, but at least we made an exception for freight. This decision from France will cause a run for the stores for sure.
Click to expand...

The advice at King George Dock this morning is that it's unaccompanied freight only to Rotterdam, no drivers. Perhaps that's wrong, it's a fast moving situation that wasn't particularly clear to begin with. And Hull is Hull.
 
TenEightyOne
Yep, as I understand it different dev vaccines use some very different methods to deliver the trigger that generates appropriate antibodies. The advice seems to be (so far) that the core nature of the Coronavirus remains unchanged enough that the majority of these (at least) will still trigger the creation of working antibodies regardless of the specific strain.
Click to expand...

In this "What do we know" piece by the BBC there's a brief mention that antibodies in people who have already had a previous strain may protect less well against the new one:
Work by Prof Ravi Gupta at the University of Cambridge has suggested this mutation increases infectivity two-fold in lab experiments.

Studies by the same group suggest the deletion makes antibodies from the blood of survivors less effective at attacking the virus.
Click to expand...

However, I've read a couple of times before that the immunity provided by a vaccine is expected to be higher and longer lasting than from having been infected, and since a similar lab test has shown vaccine produced antibodies to still be effective against the new strain, I see no cause for alarm at this point.

Incidentally, the NextStrain tool produced by Dr Emma Hodcroft looks like an incredible resource... if only I knew what it all meant! It makes the UK look like a veritable petri dish, but I presume this is at least partly just due to having the ability to identify more strains.


Daz555
France/UK border now closed. Right before Christmas. Get your Christmas food shopping in today folks because the shelves could be empty in a day or two.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this has everything to do with sensible precautions and not at all an opportunistic attempt to influence negotiations.

Honestly, I can support blocking passenger travel, but since this strain has already been identified in Netherlands and Italy I fear it's too late to contain it - quite likely it is already everywhere in between as well.
 
Last edited:
Norway just stopped all direct flights from the UK.

Touring Mars
Early data shows it is more infectious, but there is no info yet available on whether it is any more or less dangerous.
Click to expand...
The Norwegian Minister of Health was just on radio saying "it doesn't cause more serious illness". I.e. not worse than the other strain(s). Sorry if that's bad English, I just translated it directly.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Famine
  • Locked
PSN outage/restoration - latest news from PS Blog
Replies
0
Views
10K
Famine
Famine
amar212
Pre-release GT5:Prologue Thread Firmware 2.17 mandatory for GT5:P? (and Pictures)
106 107 108
Replies
3K
Views
386K
Beerz
Beerz
Sauc3
The reasons why Bush's government is corrupt
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Solid Fro
Solid Fro

Latest Posts

Back