The Lemon Fool

TedSwippet wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:But reports I have read, for those who did get Covid, it wasn't severe.

At least partly explained by selection bias. Dead people don't report on their experience.

I'm pretty sure anyone who died during a vaccine trial wouldn't be excluded from the data...

AleisterCrowley wrote:

TedSwippet wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:But reports I have read, for those who did get Covid, it wasn't severe.

At least partly explained by selection bias. Dead people don't report on their experience.

I'm pretty sure anyone who died during a vaccine trial wouldn't be excluded from the data...

Indeed. Thanks. I misconstrued the context of the quoted comment.

TedSwippet wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:But reports I have read, for those who did get Covid, it wasn't severe.

At least partly explained by selection bias. Dead people don't report on their experience.

That's the NHS's trump card. It's their successes who live to tell their stories.

Dod101 wrote:Yes I am aware of that which was issued some time ago. My question though is if we oldies have been given both our jabs at which time the bulk of the population will not have been vaccinated, does that mean those who have can resume normal activity in the knowledge that they are protected (if they really are to say 70% or whatever) ?

The answer to your question is "I doubt it". People walking round claiming "It's ok, I'm vaccinated" would just lead to more arguments, more false claimants, and more infection as those un-vaccinated start flaunting the rules too. And especially, as you say, as even those who have had the jabs still might not be truly "immune".

So I would expect restrictions FOR ALL will remain in place until the vaccinations have done their job and driven the infection rates in society right down.

It is possible that some industries, airlines, pubs, might bekeen to open to those who can prove they've been vaccinated. But I can even see that causing arguments. Psst - Forged vaccination certificate guv?

Gryff

I wonder if they've given thought to those who have already had and recovered from the virus? As they are likely to have the same protection as people who get the vaccination shouldn't they be put further down the list?

Speaking as someone who has had and recovered.

I've come across people fly-posting anti-vaxer sentiments and offering covid-dissing leaflets in SE London/NW Kent. Does anyone know if this is widespread, or do I just have a local loon? 4-5 different bits of material, professionally produced.

JohnB wrote:I've come across people fly-posting anti-vaxer sentiments and offering covid-dissing leaflets in SE London/NW Kent. Does anyone know if this is widespread, or do I just have a local loon? 4-5 different bits of material, professionally produced.

Apparently there are quite a lot of such idiots, but fortunately you can think of this as just being part of 'natural selection'. People stupid enough to think this way will have a higher propensity to get wiped out by diseases and so a lower probability of begetting more such idiots. This is the way evolution works!

Quite interesting to see how it rolls out and just how soon we can get any sort of normality, but I take the comments though, that it would scarcely be possible to differentiate between those who had and those had not been given the vaccine. The general restrictions if any would apply to all. I guess that as the vaccine is rolled out the infection rate will fall anyway and so restrictions ought to be progressively reduced.

Time will tell.

Dod

At least by starting with the over 80s, care workers and NHS workers, there should be a significant reduction in serious cases needing hospital treatment and the NHS will be 'safe' from being overwhelmed. That of course was said to be the reason for having these lockdowns in the first place.

scrumpyjack wrote:But reports I have read, for those who did get Covid, it wasn't severe.

You haven't read them all, then:

Michael Rosen on his Covid-19 coma: ‘It felt like a pre-death, a nothingness’

The Guardian

XFool wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:But reports I have read, for those who did get Covid, it wasn't severe.

You haven't read them all, then:

Michael Rosen on his Covid-19 coma: ‘It felt like a pre-death, a nothingness’

The Guardian

I'm was referring to the very small number of those who had the Pfizer vaccination but still got Covid. As I understand it, their Covid was not severe. That is the point. I don't think Mr Rosen was part of the Pfizer trial was he?

scrumpyjack wrote:I'm was referring to the very small number of those who had the Pfizer vaccination but still got Covid. As I understand it, their Covid was not severe. That is the point. I don't think Mr Rosen was part of the Pfizer trial was he?

OK, right. But not very clear from your OP.

Laughton wrote:I wonder if they've given thought to those who have already had and recovered from the virus? As they are likely to have the same protection as people who get the vaccination shouldn't they be put further down the list?

One would naturally assume so, at least I would. But I heard a suggestion the other day that this may not be so. That as the vaccine was engineered specifically to recognise the virus's spike protein, which it uses to attach to cells, it could be more effective than the natural immunity. I don't know how reliable this suggestion is.

scrumpyjack wrote:At least by starting with the over 80s, care workers and NHS workers, there should be a significant reduction in serious cases needing hospital treatment and the NHS will be 'safe' from being overwhelmed. That of course was said to be the reason for having these lockdowns in the first place.

I agree - I personally think what we will find is that after the higher risk brackets (NHS staff, Care home residents and workers, shielders, over 70's, maybe as low as over 60's) the government will have to take this sort of sentiment into account - they have been saying for ages the need for the shutdowns is to protect the NHS and the most vulnerable as the main driver.

If all the most vulnerable to serious illness and death (of course not everyone, as any of us could be affected) are vaccinated I suspect the restrictions will move to guidelines - don't go out unless you have to if you are concerned, wear masks, perhaps some continued reduced capacity in bars and restaurants, on flights, cruises etc - but otherwise things will be a lot closer to normal, say Tier 1 or even lower, as soon as the big risk areas are covered. The nay-sayers on the Government benches and by then most Labour MPs if there are no more financial rescues will force this, in my opinion.

Otherwise we could still be in tier 2 until about July which may be as long as it take to jab everyone who will take the vaccine.

Of course if life does start to be a bit more normal that early there then becomes a danger that on-the-fence semi anti vaxers will feel they don't need the vaccine, which would not be good; in some respects the delay of a return of normality is a good prompt to get as many people to accept the vaccine as possible. These people will hopefully be further pressured by a) early recipients not dying from the vaccine (!) b) workplaces asking staff to get vaccinated c) leisure and especially travel restrictions for those not vaccinated (though if there is no "passport" this might be difficult to police).

Bottom line - I think the Government will have to do something to ease restrictions once the priority groups are covered.

XFool wrote:

Laughton wrote:I wonder if they've given thought to those who have already had and recovered from the virus? As they are likely to have the same protection as people who get the vaccination shouldn't they be put further down the list?

One would naturally assume so, at least I would. But I heard a suggestion the other day that this may not be so. That as the vaccine was engineered specifically to recognise the virus's spike protein, which it uses to attach to cells, it could be more effective than the natural immunity. I don't know how reliable this suggestion is.

I think, from reading a lot about this, that it is likely some with "natural immunity" will be protected to similar levels to the vaccines, but there is a problem in that people get different levels of the virus, and thus make different levels of antibodies, and thus are protected for longer or lesser times.

Natural immunity is not just about active antibodies though, it is also about T-cell memory. T-cells are what recognise invaders and prompt the immune system to fight them off. It appears that even after actual antibodies are present in a previously infected person, the T-cells still recognise the virus and produce new antibodies to then fight the virus.

(Lots of articles out there, but this paper tells a reasonable story - https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/what-is-the-role-of-t-cells-in-covid-19-infection-why-immunity-is-about-more-than-antibodies/)

So far it does appear that it is possible to get the virus again, but the few cases I have read about have shown lesser infections (though I do recall one lady actually died second time around, but there was some thought that she never actually recovered first time around). How long the protection lasts is uncertain, as there has simply not been enough time, but doctors are still finding antibodies 10 months after infection in some people (Hugh Grant being one example of this).

Bottom line its it is complicated, and just unknown at this stage. My bet is we'll need a vaccine every year from now on - notwithstanding the risks of catching Covid will reduce enormously once 80% of the world is vaccinated. The trouble is after 2 years we may all be no longer immune and it could kick off again.

Even post-vacc, there is no way of knowing for sure that one is immune. So I expect there will be restrictions in place far into next year, and social pressures to distance and mask up even after that.
And from what I have heard, yes, it could be an annual event. The flue vaccine programme on steroids.

As to the anti-vaxxers, the country is overcrowded, the world is overcrowded, good riddance to them.

V8

But when oldies like me have been vaccinated we can make our own decisions about isolating and there won't be enough of us getting it to swamp the NHS.

Also the evidence seems to be that the 1 in 20 who are not immune after taking the vaccine do not get it severely.

The economic arguments then for easing off will IMO be overwhelming.

JohnB wrote:I've come across people fly-posting anti-vaxer sentiments and offering covid-dissing leaflets in SE London/NW Kent. Does anyone know if this is widespread, or do I just have a local loon? 4-5 different bits of material, professionally produced.

It's widespread, and dependent on IQ.

Oops this isn't PD....

scrumpyjack wrote:

JohnB wrote:I've come across people fly-posting anti-vaxer sentiments and offering covid-dissing leaflets in SE London/NW Kent. Does anyone know if this is widespread, or do I just have a local loon? 4-5 different bits of material, professionally produced.

Apparently there are quite a lot of such idiots, but fortunately you can think of this as just being part of 'natural selection'. People stupid enough to think this way will have a higher propensity to get wiped out by diseases and so a lower probability of begetting more such idiots. This is the way evolution works!

My problem with this vaccine is that is may well have passed all regulatory safety checks - but it isn't tested by time. It's been produced very quickly.

We don't know that in 5 years time everyone who has been jabbed won't get liver failure or turn blue.
None have so far. But who knows what will happen after a few years?

Other vaccines have been around for years (even the flu jab but they just alter the strain rather than starting from scratch each year) and are time tested.

I'm 40. I have my flu jab every year. I have the full battery of jabs when I go abroad to odd places.
I am not anti vaxx.
But I am wondering whether this jab will be worth the small chance of me being severely affected by a disease that has a 99.4% survival rate.

Mike4 wrote:It's widespread, and dependent on IQ.

I have a very high IQ and you can read my very reasonable post, airing a legitimate concern, above.
So thanks for the compliment of linking asking questions and raising concerns about this non-time-tested vaccine to having a high IQ.