Coronavirus 666: This is one sick thread!!!

[Totally not Gorgon]

Doesn't it stand to reason that what you get if you are exposed to Omicron ,is Omicron antibodies and Omicron immunity.  Given that we don't know when or even if there is going to be another vaccine, Omicron antibodies might be a good thing to have come next winter, as opposed to three vaccinations worth of not particularly good protection. 

[Gromnir]

more than two years o' folks being wrong and trying to reason their way to conclusions they is not gonna surrender no matter what is the evidence?  sure, hundreds o' thousands o' americans died from omicron in spite o' reduced lethality, and yeah, unlike in the case o' the safe vaccines, the idjit who purposefully gets infected with covid is gonna infect others 'cause your so-called "natural immunity" is not acquired w/o you becoming infectious and statistical likely passing on covid to at least one other person , and in the case o' omicron, multiple people, who then spread to people with lupus, those taking prednisone, or old people with heart problems.  also, previous infection is not the clear and meaningful descriptor you might imagine it to be. how much protection your previous infection provides is gonna be dependent on a whole host o' factors. etc.

is gonna take another two years? how many more dead?

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[Totally not Gorgon]

the math looks like this :

you know you are going to be exposed, you can't expect to avoid Omicron by isolating.

If you are exposed while your vaccine protection is the strongest. 1-3 months after your 3rd shot, you have mitigated the chance of severe covid by as much as you are able. 

 

[Totally not Gorgon]

And of course, all other things being equal. the exposure leads to increased immunity, and therefore also increased protection for your surroundings. 

[Gromnir]

is not so much math as rationalization. again, omicron, the least lethal major variant thus far, killed hundreds of thousands of americans in a relative brief period o' time, 'cause no matter how you wanna describe omicron lethality, covid today has the capacity to kill the infirm and healthy. recognizing the heightened transmissibility o' variants such as omicron, the math means those clowns who purposefully became infected with omicron also spread the virus to multiple other people, who also spread the virus to multiple other people, and so on, resulting in the unnecessary and predictable deaths of those who do not benefit from ideal vaccine protection or are unable to take the vaccine. so, the math tells you is smarty to chose to become infected by a highly transmissible and potential lethal disease to acquire some indeterminate and unreliable additional boost to your future resistance to variants is worth the risk to self and multiple other people?  gonna embrace selfish and ineffectual instead o' proven mitigation efforts which when utilized quick and near universal has proven extreme effective, unlike widespread "natural immunity" which has never worked (again, watch the video we offered)?

...

two years and counting.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Totally not Gorgon said:

Doesn't it stand to reason that what you get if you are exposed to Omicron ,is Omicron antibodies and Omicron immunity.  Given that we don't know when or even if there is going to be another vaccine, Omicron antibodies might be a good thing to have come next winter, as opposed to three vaccinations worth of not particularly good protection. 

The ETA for an omicron specific vaccine was March, though it had been pushed out a 'couple of weeks' from that, apparently.

The issue with natural omicron immunity is that we already know it doesn't even protect fully against other omicron strains- if you've had BA.1 you can still get BA.2, and much like delta was BA.2 is also worse than BA.1 That's also immunity gained after being sick, not really comparable to immunity gained after a bit of a sore arm after a trip to a clinic.

[Totally not Gorgon]

Well ideally they jab you in the arm with the vaccine and you come back a week later for a shot of virus in the other arm, and then you isolate. 

But, this is the strategy pursued by many European countries. They pushed the third vaccine shot in the middle of winter, the usual high point for infection, and then didn't  lockdown, like they had all the other years. hospitalizations and infections were very high. And, at least where I'm at the wave is bottoming out. So we are coming out of winter with high immunity. 

 

[Totally not Gorgon]

6 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

The ETA for an omicron specific vaccine was March, though it had been pushed out a 'couple of weeks' from that, apparently.

The issue with natural omicron immunity is that we already know it doesn't even protect fully against other omicron strains- if you've had BA.1 you can still get BA.2, and much like delta was BA.2 is also worse than BA.1 That's also immunity gained after being sick, not really comparable to immunity gained after a bit of a sore arm after a trip to a clinic.

It seems likely that we will run into the same supply problems from last time though, doesn't it. 

[Raithe]

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2022/03/the-end-of-inflammation-new-approach-could-treat-dozens-of-diseases?

[Totally not Gorgon]

54 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

is not so much math as rationalization. again, omicron, the least lethal major variant thus far, killed hundreds of thousands of americans in a relative brief period o' time, 'cause no matter how you wanna describe omicron lethality, covid today has the capacity to kill the infirm and healthy. recognizing the heightened transmissibility o' variants such as omicron, the math means those clowns who purposefully became infected with omicron also spread the virus to multiple other people, who also spread the virus to multiple other people, and so on, resulting in the unnecessary and predictable deaths of those who do not benefit from ideal vaccine protection or are unable to take the vaccine. so, the math tells you is smarty to chose to become infected by a highly transmissible and potential lethal disease to acquire some indeterminate and unreliable additional boost to your future resistance to variants is worth the risk to self and multiple other people?  gonna embrace selfish and ineffectual instead o' proven mitigation efforts which when utilized quick and near universal has proven extreme effective, unlike widespread "natural immunity" which has never worked (again, watch the video we offered)?

...

two years and counting.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Another thing to consider here, is that saving lives with extreme measures, which after two years I think you could call lockdowns, can be done more efficiently. If we force people to exercise or quit smoking we are pretty much guaranteed to save more lives. You seem to have zeroed in on  'voluntary infection', and what it is, is simply not choosing lockdown. The rest will take care of itself owing to the increased transmission of Omicron.

 We are putting immunity in the bank from a standpoint of not knowing when or if there is going to be a better time to do so. It's not free, this is increased risk for people with existing conditions, but that is the nature of these calculations, that was always the case. 

[Gromnir]

3 minutes ago, Totally not Gorgon said:

Another thing to consider here, is that saving lives with extreme measures, ...

sorry, but coming from the guy who initial insisted on using the "excessive lockdown" language, we find your complaint... amusing. regardless, how on earth does two years inherent make a lockdown more or less extreme? showing your biases. if the mitigation effort is likely to produce a decrease in infections and/or deaths and is reasonably tailored to the threat, then calling "extreme" is bordering on obtuse. again, needs be reasonably tailored, and we already observed how 'cause o' the selfishness you are curious advocating in addition to recognized US reluctance to engage in any mitigation efforts means lockdowns is current a non viable option. am not advocating lockdowns for omicron, so beat that drum if you wish to.

regardless, if two years in there were sudden a variant more lethal than delta and as transmissible as omicron, then there would be a valid argument for initiating robust mitigation efforts, including lockdowns. is nothing 'bout your fatigue which makes n95s or social distancing more or less effective. your reluctance due to elapsed days also don't impact transmissibility or lethality o' a coronavirus. 'course part o' the problem is there is unlikely to be reliable instant data on transmissibility and lethality, so in the absence o' data, what is the reasonable course o' action, eh? converse, recognizing reasonable is not gonna necessarily be an option, 'cause many people is simple "over covid," what is the practical mitigation options? 

previous infection provides unreliable protection. math. "natural immunity," and previous infection has never been the solution.

two years and counting.

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Totally not Gorgon said:

It seems likely that we will run into the same supply problems from last time though, doesn't it. 

Kind of?

On a per country basis you already had the inevitable infrastructural and distribution/ supply issues with previous vaccine applications and that means that not everyone needs a new booster at the same time- there's already a built in smoothing of demand. If a booster gave decent protection for, say, 6 months then the only people needing a new omicron specific booster are those who got their booster 6+ months ago.

On the more macro scale you could have the issue of all the countries wanting the new boosters simultaneously, but that's only an issue if there's a build up of demand.

Contrast that with the situation 15 months ago: the initial dosage was 2 shots over 3-6 weeks and everyone wanted those simultaneously because no one had been vaccinated; despite the production starting at literally zero with limited precursor supply and manufacturing facilities. Hence the issues. That situation doesn't apply now- or at least doesn't apply to anywhere near the same extent.

[Totally not Gorgon]

You aren't making a lot of sense. Your reference to "Excessive lockdown language" is simply the variable I use to store the equation "lets not bother with lockdowns that don't work" 

And indeed you don't seem to be advocating Omicron lockdowns anyway.  You aggressively assign disproportionate meaning to adverbs.  That said, a lot of people have felt lockdowns to be excessive, now, I don't particularly care about "feelings", but we do need to take stock and consider when and how we are allowed to interfere in people's lives for the greater good.  The answer is not "never," and it's not "always" either.

So when does it become "excessive". Well arguably somewhere within the confines of having another choice to accept higher transmission and having emergency capacity bend, but not break, under the strain.

This is the difference between the early days of people dying for lack of ventilators, and now. 

[Totally not Gorgon]

MYTH: The natural immunity I get from being sick with COVID-19 is better than the immunity I get from COVID-19 vaccination.

FACT: Getting a COVID-19 vaccination is a safer and more dependable way to build immunity to COVID-19 than getting sick with COVID-19.

 

Ok, but isn't this a non sequitur. We are talking Vaccine + natural immunity. Not vaccine OR natural immunity 

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Totally not Gorgon said:

You aren't making a lot of sense. Your reference to "Excessive lockdown language" is simply the variable I use to store the equation "lets not bother with lockdowns that don't work" 

 

ah, so you are mere being self indulgent and hyperbolic with extreme and excessive? gotcha. again, lockdowns is potential reasonable two years in depending on the circumstances, while recognizing two years is not actual a relevant circumstance. depending on lethality and transmissibility o' variants, future lockdowns may be reasonable as they have been reasonable during the previous two years. unfortunate, we got the same folks claiming natural immunity is a solution or being over covid or whatever, so reasonable is not the true measure. two years and nothing learned yet.

and selective quote/prune is not your best option. assuming nobody will bother to read the full explanation?

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

7 hours ago, Totally not Gorgon said:

You aren't making a lot of sense. Your reference to "Excessive lockdown language" is simply the variable I use to store the equation "lets not bother with lockdowns that don't work" 

And indeed you don't seem to be advocating Omicron lockdowns anyway.  You aggressively assign disproportionate meaning to adverbs.  That said, a lot of people have felt lockdowns to be excessive, now, I don't particularly care about "feelings", but we do need to take stock and consider when and how we are allowed to interfere in people's lives for the greater good.  The answer is not "never," and it's not "always" either.

So when does it become "excessive". Well arguably somewhere within the confines of having another choice to accept higher transmission and having emergency capacity bend, but not break, under the strain.

This is the difference between the early days of people dying for lack of ventilators, and now. 

Their is no point to any lockdown if they dont stop the virus spreading because then all you doing is harming your economy. 

Their is no real  debate around " if lockdowns were excessive ", they were absolutely excessive and in SA we could only Constitutionally justify them by using some anachronistic  Natural Disaster Act. Anytime you have to justify a policy like lockdowns with Natural Disaster Acts then its excessive. Their is no other way you could frame it 

But to make things worse in SA despite our annoying and inconsistently enforced lockdowns we 

• had 4 waves
• 2 variants 
• 80-90% of SA populations apparently had the virus but they were mostly asymptomatic 
• We only achieved 35 % more or less of vaccination rate for our citizens

So for me its obvious going forward. Since the lockdowns made no difference to the virus spread their is no point implementing them because they just hurt the economy. Vaccines in SA are free and available so if people dont want to take them thats their choice but we  cant prevent people who take vaccines from having a normal life

Also  the SA  vaccine  reality disputes the exaggerated view around " vaccine hoarding\nationalism " that basically suggests that the only reason Africa and other regions have had the virus spreading is because they have been denied vaccines by the racist\colonial\capitalist\Western countries who are hoarding them

In SA as I mentioned we have plenty of free vaccines but a failure to convince 65% of the population  to take vaccines still exists. And the main reason for the 65% not taking is that they simply dont trust our public sector healthcare and government spokespeople.

Because our government has followed the science and only endorsed vaccines and has never questioned their efficacy officially or publicly 

 

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Their is no point to any lockdown if they dont stop the virus spreading because then all you doing is harming your economy.

There is. Or rather, there  can be. Lockdowns are no longer a measure to stop covid (here in Australia), but to slow it down, so the healthcare system can keep up and keep casualty rates low as a result. Also, preventing people dying from other causes because the previous strain on the hospitals is lower. It doesn't "stop" covid, but adapting the degree of lockdowns to your countrys healthcare system still makes sense. Unless it's completely dysfunctional anyway, in which case, yeah, there might just be collateral monetary damage without any QoL improvement for the vulnerable part of the population. Eugenics fans may be all in favour of getting rid of lockdowns regardless of everything else.

[BruceVC]

6 minutes ago, Gorth said:

There is. Or rather, there  can be. Lockdowns are no longer a measure to stop covid (here in Australia), but to slow it down, so the healthcare system can keep up and keep casualty rates low as a result. Also, preventing people dying from other causes because the previous strain on the hospitals is lower. It doesn't "stop" covid, but adapting the degree of lockdowns to your countrys healthcare system still makes sense. Unless it's completely dysfunctional anyway, in which case, yeah, there might just be collateral monetary damage without any QoL improvement for the vulnerable part of the population. Eugenics fans may be all in favour of getting rid of lockdowns regardless of everything else.

Yes but as I said if the lockdowns dont stop the virus anyway then its pointless which is our SA narrative 

And the impact on the resources on hospitals matters if you have a real concern with hospital resources. But in SA it made no difference because people werent dying in hospital corridors 

But my point is you avoid the strain on hospitals if you take the vaccines but if people dont want to take vaccines its their choice and they must accept the consequence

But the lockdown need to end, they become pointless if you offer vaccines?

[Gorth]

11 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But my point is you avoid the strain on hospitals if you take the vaccines but if people dont want to take vaccines its their choice and they must accept the consequence

But the lockdown need to end, they become pointless if you offer vaccines?

I'm general in favour of letting people "have it" with all the possible consequences if they refuse vaccines because they believe in conspiracy theories. They also imho gets lowest priority if vital healthcare resources are contested. Not every country is at the stage where vaccination rates are like 90%+ and I know both in Australia in Denmark, there are restrictions in place in healthcare and aged care facilities. Not everybody *can* get vaccinated, due to no fault of their own. Down here there are also still mask requirements on public transports (because it's impossible to voluntarily distance yourself from other people) and international airports (which I think have opened without many people noticing it).

 

Edit: But it's a far cry from border closures and ban on public establishments etc.

[BruceVC]

10 minutes ago, Gorth said:

I'm general in favour of letting people "have it" with all the possible consequences if they refuse vaccines because they believe in conspiracy theories. They also imho gets lowest priority if vital healthcare resources are contested. Not every country is at the stage where vaccination rates are like 90%+ and I know both in Australia in Denmark, there are restrictions in place in healthcare and aged care facilities. Not everybody *can* get vaccinated, due to no fault of their own. Down here there are also still mask requirements on public transports (because it's impossible to voluntarily distance yourself from other people) and international airports (which I think have opened without many people noticing it).

 

Edit: But it's a far cry from border closures and ban on public establishments etc.

You make good points and some I agree with especially  " letting people "have it" with all the possible consequences if they refuse vaccines because they believe in conspiracy theories. They also imho gets lowest priority if vital healthcare resources are conteste " and we not being cynical or insensitive . We being practical 

But Im not convinced by the argument " Not everybody *can* get vaccinated, due to no fault of their own" or maybe you can give examples of what you mean. And I do agree their will be  some valid reasons for not taking a vaccine like people with previous health  issues where they have to be cautious about any vaccine 

But as you know SA is not a first country like Oz and for the last 10 months or so we have had massive initiatives  in cities and rural areas to try to get people vaccinated. Their is basically 95 % coverage for anyone who wants a jab

Yet the message of the efficacy of vaccines wasnt believed because primarily people dont trust this particular government message 

Now in OZ you have more resources and ability  to deliver vaccines so maybe you can give examples of what you meant by " Not everybody *can* get vaccinated, due to no fault of their own " ?

 

[Gorth]

59 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But Im not convinced by the argument " Not everybody *can* get vaccinated, due to no fault of their own" or maybe you can give examples of what you mean. And I do agree their will be  some valid reasons for not taking a vaccine like people with previous health  issues where they have to be cautious about any vaccine 

Some people react badly to vaccines (the various components in the vaccine, it's not just a saline solution) and the vaccine could kill them outright without waiting for covid to catch them

 

Edit: That was just one example. I'm sure I remember something about cancer patients (on chemo therapy) being vulnerable to covid because the treatment and vaccines don't go well together. I.e. it would be a death sentence for such patients if the Omicron variant were to run rampant on a hospital ward.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7002e1.htm

 

[BruceVC]

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/28/china/shanghai-lockdown-china-covid-19-outbreak-intl-hnk/index.html

The CCP really demonstrate inexplicable behavior around Corona 

Firstly you would think a virus spreading is "normal " to them considering many viruses have their origin from China but they really seem obsessed and neurotic with Corona and this ridiculous " zero-Covid " policy

I wonder what they think they trying to prove or achieve? 

[Gorth]

7 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I wonder what they think they trying to prove or achieve? 

The very idea that something can be beyond the control of The Party is probably very offensive to them.

[Zoraptor]

China has a surprising number of unvaccinated old people. The figures for Hong Kong once covid got established were pretty grim mortality wise in that regard. Last thing the Chinese leadership want is a India w/ delta like situation of mass deaths, as that becomes almost impossible to keep a lid on.

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, Gorth said:

The very idea that something can be beyond the control of The Party is probably very offensive to them.

I can believe Zoras post is a concern to the CCP, the risk to large numbers of elderly people Im sure is real

But I think your post  is the main reason. They dont like the idea of not having control over an aspect of their society and its causing this complete overreaction which is going to fail as most of the rest of the world has learnt about Corona