I don't think that anyone is wrong. As I mentioned a few pages ago, the common trend viruses follow over time is to become more transmissible and less virulent. If that is the case with Omicron (it would be extremely rare if it isn't), then you should expect more cases overall, but also less serious cases.Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
I keep hearing this, but is it actually proven? HIV, Ebola, Measles, Flu, Smallpox, Polio, etc. There's loads that haven't become more transmissible but less virulent. We had to force them to stop killing us.
The Flu in particular seems to swing wildly all over the place.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-011488089270
I appreciate the "claim" is flawed because nobody has claimed that "No virus has ever mutated to become more lethal. As viruses mutate, they become less lethal", but "THE FACTS" remain. The Zelda Variant could still murder us all.
Have a good day lads.
If by proven you mean that it is always the case, then no. But, imo, it should be the default assumption until proven otherwise. Assuming that a new variant will be both more transmissible and more virulent is choosing to default to a lower probability case. I guess that you could say that it is the safer route.
Anecdotally, South Africans don't seem too worried. Their wave has been going for 3 weeks and hasn't translated into increased mortality yet.
To be fair Covid is a storm in a tea cup by SA standards.
I did some reading on this last time it was brought up and basically came to the conclusion that the answer, as with most things, was "maybe but it's not straightforward".
It's only the elderly and vulnerable that are at risk of hospitalisation. I still don't understand why we went from vaccinate them to this shitfest.
Funny how that's nowhere near the mainstream news sites. It's very good news, it's been known for a fortnight and yet the BBC haven't put it front and centre once.
It's a good job we're stopping it spreading. We don't want a lazy foreign variant over here not killing people.
Deepti reckons South Africa is exceptional (don't ask me why) and we will see the same levels of hospitalisation as in previous variants. Guess we'll soon see who's right.
I managed to book my booster jab right in the middle of Wolves v Chelsea. Probably for the best, tbh.
If it doesn't start making mainstream news now then yeah, but it's not very responsible to report on very early/small data sets without giving very clear context (which most people will ignore or not understand anyway). I do completely appreciate they probably would if it was bad news.
Small data sets are very vulnerable to biases or random variations and aren't reliable for basing big decisions on. Making a cautious decision and stepping back later if the data stays looking good is a much better approach than going gung-ho and then realising you've fucked it later with no way to go back.
As a real life example, there was a lot of concern about the rate of anaphylaxis with the Pfizer vaccinations initially which is why people were asked to stay for 15 minutes after their jab. Turns out the early data was just coloured by random bad luck where they got quite a few anaphylactic reactions in the first few weeks but the rate once more data has come out is MUCH lower than the early data suggested.
Last edited by randomlegend; 14-12-2021 at 11:39 AM.
Makes perfect sense what you're saying RL, but it should work both ways and it doesn't - when someone so much as coughs it's straight on the BBC's front page.
They're right, there's no scientific reason why they wouldn't be - we've just been conditioned now to only accept bad news on this. It'll be worse for us as it's our Winter and their Summer, which makes a difference, but not enough for 'corpses to start piling up in the street', which they'd get close to doing if we got anywhere near 75,000 deaths in such a short space of time.
I'm not sure I'd give much credence to "data out of South Africa" but if it holds up once verified then that's promising news.
Because their scientists are working from mud huts? And we gave all the credence in the World to their data that suggested Omicron was a potential problem in the first place.
I read somewhere that South Africa first detected Omicron because their virus-studying scientists are so good because they've been tracking HIV for years.
Although on the news last night (I think it was Channel 4) someone made the point about their population generally being younger. Dunno if that's been factored into the stuff about the cases generally being milder. You'd imagine it has.
It's definitely a younger population, but then they've also vaccinated a pitifully small amount of people, (while we give boosters to 18 year olds).
Plus when they say milder, it is in relation to the previous strands, on the same population. It is not like they are comparing 80 year old Brits to 15 year old S. Africans.
Shows how mental this has all got when I'm having to convince people that scientists are right.
It's all predictably political. The people calling for restrictions now are the same ones who've been calling for restrictions for the last 11 months, across all kinds of scenarios. Same applies the opposite way.
It doesn't have to be that way, I've changed my tune hugely from 12-18 months ago, because there's been very good reason to.
When scientists talk about science, they are usually right. When scientists talk about policy, they are usually as wrong as politicians are when they talk about science.
Supposedly natural immunity is a lot higher in South Africa due to previous waves.
I think it's dangerous to compare different countries with so many variables.
And given we've pretty much had the highest cases the most consistently why aren't we all immune?
Hang on, so now we're saying natural immunity is better than having a vaccine....
And we're not comparing different countries on a macro level (e.g. death rates, case numbers etc.), we're looking at specific people who have Omicron in South Africa and what that disease is doing to them.
It’s pretty well established that the immunity you get from an infection is better than that from a vaccine. The vaccine might only target a handful of sites on the surface of the virus but your immune system will go after everything.
And yet here I am, ostracised from society despite being a fit, healthy, young, successful higher rate tax payer.
I don't doubt it, yet (and in another anti-science move by those being led by the science) I think I'm right in saying having had COVID isn't enough to get a COVID pass, you need to have had the vaccine.
I'm a twit
Mine's a Scotch Egg.
The new rules up here.
There isn’t any, is there? Is she not just ‘advising’?
If it has a dancefloor it's not a pub.
Shops, supermarkets and businesses across Scotland will have to re-introduce social distancing protections and limit the number of people in their stores under new guidance to stop the spread of Omicron.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon told MSPs that the Scottish Government will amend regulations to make it a legal requirement for businesses providing services to take measures to reduce transmission.
The move could see queuing return outside many shops in the run-up to the busy Christmas season.
My surgery has texted me to come on Tuesday between 9am - 1pm (surnames starting with A-M) for my booster. This seems like a surefire way to have queues for days. Don't know whether to go early doors and hope I get first in line or chance going in at a random time mid-morning.
amazing how these GP's can make themselves sooooo available for £95 per hour injections but can't be arsed to see any patients or provide decent primary care...
My daughter has a doctors appointment for an ear ache this afternoon, so they appear to be back in service. Or at least ours is. They are like totes sooooo available.
I imagine it's nurses giving the jabs, no? They just happen to work at the GP's surgery.
It's all sorts of people giving jabs. Nurses, doctors, HCAs, theatre staff, pharmacists, army medics. Many are people who were retired and are coming back.
Other services will almost certainly suffer in order to provide the vaccine service the government is demanding, though
My guess would be that proving you’ve had a vaccine is a lot easier than proving a past infection. You’d need to be doing antibody screening and all sorts of shit. Easier and cheaper just to jab people and use that as the gold standard.
Pretty easy to refer to a positive test from one of the 10.8m we already have on record, or even whatever the (lower) number is for PCR's.
How many are lateral flows? How many positive lateral flows are reported to the NHS? And how many people get it and are asymptomatic? Far too complex when getting jabbed and logging it on a system is the alternative.
I'm sorry why should you need to prove anything?
Once again, the vulnerable have been vaccinated so why are we not done with this bollocks?
What a system that would be.
"Sorry lad, you can't come in, you've not been ill yet"
but how can I get ill if I'm not allowed in anywhere?
"Why would you want to get ill?"
So I can come in there!
"But you can't. You've not been ill yet. Stay safe."
I don't know why we need to prove anything. I'm responding to Yev regarding infection vs vaccination.
LFT's I agree with are a bit dodgy to administer, which is why I specified PCR's, the data for which is all there. You're looking for problems that don't exist, which is symptomatic of this whole shitshow.
"Sorry lad, despite you being super fit and healthy and totes not at risk you can't come in because you've not had a vaccine that will prevent you passing it on...I mean prevent you dying...I mean hospitalised...I mean..."
"Well what about Giggles and Mahow?"
"They'll die shortly, my sweet, of course of actual harmful things like diabetes, cancer, stroke or heart attack"
"Great"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
