Tony Mowbray Discussion

[Hannoverover 73]

2 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

There is no credible scientific basis for saying the vaccine reduces a person's chance of catching and therefore spreading the virus.

As far as I am aware there are no medical papers stating this.  

The vaccine reduces your chances of getting a serious illness. But you can still catch it. You can still pass it on! 

Here's a summary of the lancet paper detailing the effectiveness of Oxford-AZ vaccine in reducing asymptomatic infections in phase 3 trails: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4777. 

Yes, this is a key issue, asymptomatic transmission will be reduced, however the extent still needs to be determined and several groups will be studying this for all the vaccines currently available. I would expect data to appear in the near future, especially in the UK due to the high level of testing and vaccination rate.

In theory, reduction in asymptomatic infections and transmission should decrease in immunised/recovered people, maybe a little or probably (hopefully) a lot.

Regarding the effectiveness of the lockdowns, here's an interesting graphic to play around with: https://syndromictrends.com/metric/panel/rp/percent_positivity/organism/main

I'm actually involved in a similar study at the moment.

I can go into more detail and answer any questions to the above points if needed.

[jim mk2 8636]

46 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

I'm just trying to make logical sense of what the key factors are here to make a rational prediction of when things will end. I don't have an issue with an extended lockdown if it's necessary. Nothing magical about it.

The only compelling reasons Ive seen so far why an extended lockdown would be needed is if the virus mutates and evades the vaccines, or if the vaccines are not effective as predicted in preventing serious illness and people end up in hospital. Both would require new vaccines to be issued and put us back months.

If the above two don't happen then, as far as I can tell from what I've read, once you have vaccinated those who drive hospital admissions you should be able to open up gradually. Not sure what you have an issue with in there?

The UK government approach is a huge gamble by extending the time between the 2 jabs.  It is doing one jab with no medical evidence regarding the impact of a delay in the second jab and despite warnings from the scientific community that it is taking a risk and  may make the vaccine less effective.

On top of that, the government is hoping that once the single jab is received by 25% of the population, by end of February, that the jab will largely wipe out the disease and that restrictions can be eased, with no masks, no social distance etc etc, which clearly won't be the case.

What we need is honesty about the effectiveness of the vaccine.

[47er 8897]

2 hours ago, RoverDom said:

So we essentially reduce it to as harmful as the flu / common cold? 

I don't know why you would say this. Does the common cold or flu have life-lasting consequences for your lungs and other organs? You always minimise because according to you,you are "young, fit and healthy."

Let's hope you don't find out the hard way and I genuinely mean that.

Edited January 17 by 47er

[47er 8897]

3 hours ago, joey_big_nose said:

My original point was answering Jims hypothetical scenarios of 100% vaccine coverage not making a difference...

Your point regarding under 55s is a really good one. I suppose the question is how many of the patients in hospital over the pandemic are people who would not be vaccinated in the initial 15m vaccination risk group. If a big number of the people in hospital are outside the 15m group then yes we could be waiting till those cohorts of people are innoculated also which pushes the timeline out from March till June I guess...

So you've come pretty much to the point I was making originally in the discussion. That's good.

[RoverDom 1807]

18 minutes ago, 47er said:

I don't know why you would say this. Does the common cold or flu have life-lasting consequences for your lungs and other organs? You always minimise because according to you,you are "young, fit and healthy."

Let's hope you don't find out the hard way and I genuinely mean that.

I was responding to the point that the vaccine doesnt stop transmission but minimises / eliminates the chances of getting seriously ill from it. If the virus is circulating but not doing serious damage then really whats the issue / need for restrictions? 

Also I believe yes, complications can arise from flu leading to life long damage. 

[47er 8897]

Just now, RoverDom said:

Also I believe yes, complications can arise from flu leading to life long damage. 

And therefore you think there is equivalence between catching flu and catching Corona? The problems wold be roughly equal in severity?

Utter rubbish. Tell me honestly which disease of the two would you least fear?

Flu---by a factor of thousands?

[RoverDom 1807]

7 minutes ago, 47er said:

And therefore you think there is equivalence between catching flu and catching Corona? The problems wold be roughly equal in severity?

Utter rubbish. Tell me honestly which disease of the two would you least fear?

Flu---by a factor of thousands?

I just answered your question about whether you could get lifelong complications from flu....

I think youve also entirely missed the point. I was saying that if we've vaccinated everyone and the vaccine stops people getting seriously ill then covid isnt dangerous anymore (Jim's hypothetical scenario earlier on). Is it really that outrageous to suggest that covid-19 without the serious symptoms and side effects is comparable to other illnesses? 

 

And as you asked, I've had 4 friends who have had it with symptoms (a fair few asymptomatic) and theyve all said theyve had worse bouts of flu before so I probably fear them both equally. But regarding my parents i'd fear covid more, my grandparents I think either would kill them off at this stage tbh.

[47er 8897]

27 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

I just answered your question about whether you could get lifelong complications from flu....

I think youve also entirely missed the point. I was saying that if we've vaccinated everyone and the vaccine stops people getting seriously ill then covid isnt dangerous anymore (Jim's hypothetical scenario earlier on). Is it really that outrageous to suggest that covid-19 without the serious symptoms and side effects is comparable to other illnesses? 

If,if. The answer is we don't know and shouldn't take risks.

And as you asked, I've had 4 friends who have had it with symptoms (a fair few asymptomatic) and theyve all said theyve had worse bouts of flu before so I probably fear them both equally. But regarding my parents i'd fear covid more, my grandparents I think either would kill them off at this stage tbh.

Yes but you are generalising from the particular again. A few examples don't prove anything. Of course flu can result in nasty consequences for some and even death. Not to be compared to the ravages of Covid long-term which by definition, we haven't fully seen yet.

Although, there are plenty of tales of people who had Covid and are still dragging themselves round the house months later.

I asked you which you most feared catching---common cold, flu or Covid 19.

Your silence is eloquent.

 

 

[Dreams of 1995 4628]

So we can go for a beer and get pissed up in tents in the summer again yeah? 
 

Lovely. If you’ve ever had a case of the festival lurgy then I reckon that does some permanent damage to the organs too. 

[RoverDom 1807]

6 hours ago, 47er said:

If,if. The answer is we don't know and shouldn't take risks.

Its perfectly acceptable to talk about 'ifs' when responding to a hypothetical scenario. 

 

You keep missing the point and steering it back to 'covid is worse than flu'. So again, in the hypothetical scenario where we vaccinate everyone in 24 hours, given the study data indicates that vaccines stop people getting seriously ill, in this instance where covid no longer causes serious symptoms and side effects, is it not  acceptable to suggest it is comparable to flu?

Note - no where in that paragraph have I said flu and covid are the same. 

6 hours ago, 47er said:

I asked you which you most feared catching---common cold, flu or Covid 19.

And I answered, I fear both flu and covid equally. Which is not a lot. 

 

[47er 8897]

42 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

And I answered, I fear both flu and covid equally. Which is not a lot. 

And all I say to that is "more fool you" and I'll leave it there

 

43 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

 

You keep missing the point and steering it back to 'covid is worse than flu'.

No, you've clearly implied in your earlier post and confirmed above that you don't think Covid is any worse than flu and I think that's dumb.

[RoverDom 1807]

16 minutes ago, 47er said:

No, you've clearly implied in your earlier post and confirmed above that you don't think Covid is any worse than flu and I think that's dumb.

Only in the context of a fully vaccinated population did I say that.

I then said that me personally, i fear both equally, I didnt say that applies to everyone. I'd be terrified if my parents got covid but not so much with flu. And for the NHS and society as a whole, I'd fear covid more. 

To give you an answer that you want, I'd rather have the worst possible symptoms of flu than the worst possible symptoms of covid but that wasnt the question. The risk to my age group of being seriously ill or dying from either is so low and in terms of fear it's very much in the 'I could get hit by a bus crossing the road' category. I'm more concerned about ICU being full and me being in a car crash when driving in ice like we had last week. 

Edited January 18 by RoverDom

[Jimbo 398]

37 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

Only in the context of a fully vaccinated population did I say that.

I then said that me personally, i fear both equally, I didnt say that applies to everyone. I'd be terrified if my parents got covid but not so much with flu. And for the NHS and society as a whole, I'd fear covid more. 

To give you an answer that you want, I'd rather have the worst possible symptoms of flu than the worst possible symptoms of covid but that wasnt the question. The risk to my age group of being seriously ill or dying from either is so low and in terms of fear it's very much in the 'I could get hit by a bus crossing the road' category. I'm more concerned about ICU being full and me being in a car crash when driving in ice like we had last week. 

Surely that only works if the vaccine is effective and permanent - If the innoculation effectiveness is reduced over time and Covid is still circulating in the general population then we have big problems. It wouldn't be too long before the virus mutatates to a vacciine busting version and then we are back to square one.

Edited January 18 by Jimbo

[47er 8897]

36 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

then said that me personally, i fear both equally,

"which is not a lot" you forgot that bit!

[47er 8897]

39 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

The risk to my age group of being seriously ill or dying from either is so low and in terms of fear it's very much in the 'I could get hit by a bus crossing the road' category. I'm more concerned about ICU being full and me being in a car crash when driving in ice like we had last week. 

Edited 27 minutes ago by RoverDom

Can't beat a bit of whataboutery eh?

Now I'm really finished. I've told you before I haven't got your stamina or dedication.

Edited January 18 by 47er

[RoverDom 1807]

7 minutes ago, 47er said:

Can't beat a bit of whataboutery eh?

Now I'm really finished. I've told you before I haven't got your stamina or dedication.

Disagreeing with you about what causes us both worry isnt whataboutery. It's the entirely reasonable byproduct of us being in completely different age brackets and having completely different life experiences. Different people have different risks in their life. 

I'm not worried about catching covid but I can see why many others would be and i understand why we need to take steps to protect the NHS. I'm not actively looking to get it but I'm not going to loose any sleep at the thought of catching it, you're more than welcome to though. 

[Hasta 3560]

14 hours ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

A&E nurse, 43, catches Covid after his second vaccination was postponed | Daily Mail Online

Nurse gets Covid 3/4 weeks after first dose.  Bit of risk they're taking with this - there's no data re efficacy other than that for the 2 x vaccine shot. And the 2nd shot is no longer guaranteed. 

Covid vaccine: Raab refuses to guarantee everyone will receive second dose | The Independent

If the vaccine doesn't stop you getting re-infected, doesn't stop transmission and only stops you getting seriously ill or hospitalised (and is only 90% effective), then this is a bit of a non-story in the Mail isn't it?

 

Edited January 18 by Hasta

[jim mk2 8636]

2 hours ago, RoverDom said:

 

And I answered, I fear both flu and covid equally. Which is not a lot. 

 

That’s your most bizarre statement yet, and you’ve made quite a few

[joey_big_nose 3025]

11 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

The UK government approach is a huge gamble by extending the time between the 2 jabs.  It is doing one jab with no medical evidence regarding the impact of a delay in the second jab and despite warnings from the scientific community that it is taking a risk and  may make the vaccine less effective.

On top of that, the government is hoping that once the single jab is received by 25% of the population, by end of February, that the jab will largely wipe out the disease and that restrictions can be eased, with no masks, no social distance etc etc, which clearly won't be the case.

What we need is honesty about the effectiveness of the vaccine.

Ah okay your hypothesis is the vaccines in a single dose won't stop people becoming seriously ill in a time frame of the next 9 months or so. If that is the case we, and the entire planet, is really buggered.

We will be able to tell if it is the case or not in the next few months. If it does turn out that the vaccines are ineffective we're in a really desperate situation.

[Hasta 3560]

11 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

On top of that, the government is hoping that once the single jab is received by 25% of the population, by end of February, that the jab will largely wipe out the disease and that restrictions can be eased, with no masks, no social distance etc etc, which clearly won't be the case.

Where have you got this nonsense from?

[jim mk2 8636]

2 minutes ago, Hasta said:

If the vaccine doesn't stop you getting re-infected, doesn't stop transmission and only stops you getting seriously ill or hospitalised (and is only 90% effective), then this is a bit of a non-story isn't it?

 

Vaccines are part of the way out of this. We’ll still have to carry on with social distancing, face masks and other measures for a long time even if when we’re all inoculated (which isn’t going to happen) 

[jim mk2 8636]

Just now, Hasta said:

Where have you got this nonsense from?

Background reading from reputable sources. Novel approach for some folk 

[Tyrone Shoelaces 12068]

10 hours ago, RoverDom said:

I was responding to the point that the vaccine doesnt stop transmission but minimises / eliminates the chances of getting seriously ill from it. If the virus is circulating but not doing serious damage then really whats the issue / need for restrictions? 

Also I believe yes, complications can arise from flu leading to life long damage. 

I had the flu at Xmas in 2010. It was the flu from hell. I was in bed all Xmas Day and I only got up for an hour on Boxing day. It was over a week before I felt anything like normal. As a I result I lost my sense of smell and taste. My sense of taste came back after about two weeks but my sense of smell has only returned to less than 50% of what it was before. Pretty trivial compared with " Long Covid " but still quite a loss I wasn't expecting. I'd had flu before without any long term repercussions.

[Hasta 3560]

5 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Background reading from reputable sources. Novel approach for some folk 

That would be completely crazy if true.

But I've seen nothing of the sort, I've seen no government public declarations of optimism like we have had previously giving us short term hope. I've seen both medical and government officials talking about restrictions for much more of the year. I've seen no signs that the government is hoping for social distancing and mask-wearing to be gone by the end of February.

Have you got a link?

 

Edited January 18 by Hasta

[joey_big_nose 3025]

11 hours ago, 47er said:

So you've come pretty much to the point I was making originally in the discussion. That's good.

It was a good point- I'm in this discussion to be informed, not right. I don't really get why so many people are so focused on being recognised as right on an anonymous messageboard.

So your view, if we are in the same page as you say, is once those who are driving hospitalisations are vaccinated we will open up (with some form of social distancing in place, obviously)? So some time April to June?

Edited January 18 by joey_big_nose