Coronavirus - the new strain XVIII

[gavreid]

Very early days for the Indian variant, some of it will be purely random right now. In a few weeks it will be everywhere and will 'level out' distribution wise.

For sure. We'll likely never know the answer but, at this risk of stating the obvious, it has to start somewhere. I mean a specific school or college, a particular workplace a local person's circumstances etc. The Director of Public Health in Bedford has been commenting today on just how transmissible it seems to be.


One of the really striking things about the variant is just how transmissible it is. If someone goes to school and tests positive, we are then seeing their whole family test positive.

She certainly seems to be saying here that it's transmitted via schools (which has long been my theory anyway).

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...08e659a47e8a76#block-60a379ed8f08e659a47e8a76

 

[Enfield boy]

We have a potentially lethal virus, it's pretty much everywhere, vaccination reduces the chances of getting it and reduces the severity of the infection, for now. This will not stop transmission and while the virus continues this transmission, here and abroad, there remains a real risk that it will mutate into a version that can not only get past the vaccine but be more deadly.
Easing lockdown is very risky, leaving the borders open for so long when the Indian variant was known about was replicating the stupid mistakes made in early 2020.

 

[h.g.]

It's less a question of using it than wielding its authority.

The point of scientific knowledge is that it is independent of people. If one opts not to understand the science and instead base one's reasoning on who one feels might be the most authoritative/attractive then fair enough. It isn't likely to be particularly reliable but avoids having to make an effort to understand for oneself. I suspect this might be a part of how Deej sees things but without his input I am far from sure. He was talking about faith in vaccinations rather than people after all which is interesting and prompted me to enquire twice.

 

[farfromthesun]

But Richard Murphy is *of* the faith, I feel it only fair to warn you .

Murphy is correct here on the politics of all this IMO but in fairness to Deej that is an extremely wide-ranging thread and goes well beyond Murphy’s own area of expertise, which is tax economics. His take on the likelihood of another big wave, which is what Deej is referring to here I suspect, has no more authority from expertise than anyone else’s.

What are you, his Dad or something?

You rightly say that it is an extremely wide ranging thread touching on capitalism, the environment - and human relationship with it - economics, poverty, politics, etc. yet the response "why doesn't he believe in vaccines" (/ "he wants to lock down forever" (c) Deej92) is totally standard fodder so narrow in view that he could live out the rest of his life on a gymnasts beam.

 

[tiggers]

She certainly seems to be saying here that it's transmitted via schools (which has long been my theory anyway).

Mine too.

 

[Spraggons Den]

Easing lock down is ultimately a political decision albeit informed by scientific data. In contrast to the angst shown on here, Johnson seems to have just about taken the majority of the public with him during the pandemic after being very slow out of the blocks. Sturgeons timings have been close to BJs.

We can't stay in lockdown forever and we need to recognise that all human activity carries some degree of risk. It's up to the different national leaders to decide what is acceptable whilst encouraging growth in the economy and for that they are accountable.

 

[sean99]

We have a potentially lethal virus, it's pretty much everywhere, vaccination reduces the chances of getting it and reduces the severity of the infection, for now. This will not stop transmission and while the virus continues this transmission, here and abroad, there remains a real risk that it will mutate into a version that can not only get past the vaccine but be more deadly.
Easing lockdown is very risky, leaving the borders open for so long when the Indian variant was known about was replicating the stupid mistakes made in early 2020.

I think you greatly understate the efficacy of the vaccines at preventing severe infection and at reduce transmission.

"there remains a real risk that it will mutate into a version that can not only get past the vaccine but be more deadly."

There is not currently any evidence of the virus mutating so as to escape the vaccines, and the vaccine manufacturers will have booster shots tweaked for the variants by next winter. The SA variant is the one against which the vaccines are the least effective and it was created in an unvaccinated population. AFAIK no new variants have appeared in vaccinated populations as yet.

"Easing lockdown is very risky"

that's what I thought when Massachusetts started aggressively easing lockdown back in April, but the case numbers, hospitalizations and deaths continue to fall here. The key to this appears to be the continued push to vaccinate as many people as possible.

By no means am I declaring victory over COVID and it is our duty to help vaccinate the world, but I think the available evidence is that we've been extremely lucky that the vaccines are extraordinarily effective, and there is much reason to be optimistic for the near future.

 

[mandryka]

Easing lock down is ultimately a political decision albeit informed by scientific data. In contrast to the angst shown on here, Johnson seems to have just about taken the majority of the public with him during the pandemic after being very slow out of the blocks. Sturgeons timings have been close to BJs.

We can't stay in lockdown forever and we need to recognise that all human activity carries some degree of risk. It's up to the different national leaders to decide what is acceptable whilst encouraging growth in the economy and for that they are accountable.

This is a view which is not shared by everyone, for example Gabriel Scally, who's an epidemiologist at the Royal Society of Medicine, made this comment which impressed me, not because I believe it, but because it exposes his (extreme) position vis-a-vis risk with such clarity:

It's not a question of whether you're going to put your money on it being a big wave or are you going to put your money on it not being a big wave. What we've got to do is prevent any risk of it being a bit wave.

indie_SAGE 14.05.21 - YouTube (He starts to speak at about 24 mins.)

He's saying, stop it even being a possible big wave (undefined of course, how big is big?) whatever the cost.

I think it gets to the heart of the matter, it's one of the fundamental sources of disagreement about what's the right thing to do in this crisis.

 

[Seanm]

The point of scientific knowledge is that it is independent of people. If one opts not to understand the science and instead base one's reasoning on who one feels might be the most authoritative/attractive then fair enough. It isn't likely to be particularly reliable but avoids having to make an effort to understand for oneself. I suspect this might be a part of how Deej sees things but without his input I am far from sure. He was talking about faith in vaccinations rather than people after all which is interesting and prompted me to enquire twice.

Well, we agree! Although in reality there's always a grey area between trusting the science, which is independent of people, and trusting the people conveying it, just as the relationship between science and government is one huge grey area. It's a reality that the faith/science binary can't really grasp, IMO. As for Deej's language I suspect the word "faith" has less significance for him than for you.

Personally, my relationship to vaccines is much closer to faith than scientific understanding: I have some very limited understanding of the institutions and the processes through which the vaccine has to pass before it gets stuck into my arm, and I trust them on the basis of it: not really a scientific approach. I don't have a rashers about the science of vaccination itself, especially this new fangled mRNA stuff.

 

[Seanm]

I wouldn't call this a balanced article, exactly:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57150871

But it does clarify a few things about the risks involved in opening up, and the decision-making processes involved in going ahead with the road map, and it's a reminder that scientists disagree or at least have different perspectives on things: it's not just Scientists vs Government.

 

[gavreid]

I wouldn't call this a balanced article, exactly:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57150871

But it does clarify a few things about the risks involved in opening up, and the decision-making processes involved in going ahead with the road map, and it's a reminder that scientists disagree or at least have different perspectives on things: it's not just Scientists vs Government.

"But the government was already committed - it had been confirmed last Monday - and so it [delaying] was ruled out..."

 

[Seanm]

"But the government was already committed - it had been confirmed last Monday - and so it was ruled out..."

That's the bit that *is* balanced!

I certainly don't trust the government to do the right thing for the right reasons. But it's not true to say that they're going against the science on this. They're going against some of the science.

 

[Enfield boy]

I think you greatly understate the efficacy of the vaccines at preventing severe infection and at reduce transmission.

"there remains a real risk that it will mutate into a version that can not only get past the vaccine but be more deadly."

There is not currently any evidence of the virus mutating so as to escape the vaccines, and the vaccine manufacturers will have booster shots tweaked for the variants by next winter. The SA variant is the one against which the vaccines are the least effective and it was created in an unvaccinated population. AFAIK no new variants have appeared in vaccinated populations as yet.

"Easing lockdown is very risky"

that's what I thought when Massachusetts started aggressively easing lockdown back in April, but the case numbers, hospitalizations and deaths continue to fall here. The key to this appears to be the continued push to vaccinate as many people as possible.

By no means am I declaring victory over COVID and it is our duty to help vaccinate the world, but I think the available evidence is that we've been extremely lucky that the vaccines are extraordinarily effective, and there is much reason to be optimistic for the near future.

Wasn't aware I'd put numbers on it.

The virus has mutated both here and abroad and current vaccines are less effective against some new variants, there is no current intention to vaccinate 100% of our population and the UK has seen examples here of all variants so far identified.

There are many parts of the world where vaccination is rare, we continue to see world travel and people ignoring self isolation rules. Last year our govt thought it had things under control, they were wrong.

It does appear that, in spite of 150,000 deaths here we have been lucky. Our infrastructure has survived and given us the chance to start opening up. I also agree our vax program has been impressive but that the rest of the world desperately needs the help of the rich countries

We're still seeing c 2k reported cases per day in the UK there have already been many different variants, mutations will continue. Leaving the door open to a new variant for so long was dumb.

 

[hc25036]

(snip)

AFAIK no new variants have appeared in vaccinated populations as yet.

"Easing lockdown is very risky"

that's what I thought when Massachusetts started aggressively easing lockdown back in April, but the case numbers, hospitalizations and deaths continue to fall here. The key to this appears to be the continued push to vaccinate as many people as possible.

By no means am I declaring victory over COVID and it is our duty to help vaccinate the world, but I think the available evidence is that we've been extremely lucky that the vaccines are extraordinarily effective, and there is much reason to be optimistic for the near future.

{Broken record mode on} It's a numbers game. If vaccinated people get infected, which they do although in relatively small numbers, then errors in virus replication - that is appearance of variants - will be happening because that is what RNA-based viral replication does. We do not yet (AFAIK) have a variant of concern proven to arise from a vaccinated patient, but the fact that vaccines are very effective lowers the probabilty of it happening, but that probability is not zero.

Paradoxically, that probability will rise as more people are vaccinated and there is a significant outbreak in their unvaccinated neighbours. {broken record mode off}

I agree that there is much reason to be optimistic for the near future. However, there is great danger in a too much complacency.

 

[gavreid]

2 412 cases today (about equal with last week), 7 deaths and 74, 72 and 70 hospitalisations to 15th.

 

[sean99]

{Broken record mode on} It's a numbers game. If vaccinated people get infected, which they do although in relatively small numbers, then errors in virus replication - that is appearance of variants - will be happening because that is what RNA-based viral replication does. We do not yet (AFAIK) have a variant of concern proven to arise from a vaccinated patient, but the fact that vaccines are very effective lowers the probabilty of it happening, but that probability is not zero.

Paradoxically, that probability will rise as more people are vaccinated and there is a significant outbreak in their unvaccinated neighbours. {broken record mode off}

I agree that there is much reason to be optimistic for the near future. However, there is great danger in a too much complacency.

My point was that ISTM much less likely that variants of concern will arise in vaccinated populations given the efficacy of the vaccines at reducing transmission, duration and severity of illness. All variants of concern to date have arisen in unvaccinated populations with high case counts.

 

[gavreid]

My point was that ISTM much less likely that variants of concern will arise in vaccinated populations given the efficacy of the vaccines at reducing transmission, duration and severity of illness. All variants of concern to date have arisen in unvaccinated populations with high case counts.

To my mind the 'Wuhan variety' was not well adapted to infect humans so the evolutionary pressure is towards those adaptations that increase infection through higher transmission i.e. by finding a more effective binding mechanism to the key receptors. Those changes, if they do occur naturally, will make the vaccines less effective (rather than on/off) simply because they all setup to target the spike protein in its native, original form. The higher the prevailing case rate the more likely such mutations will develop. Since vaccination can't be instantaneous, and the threshold for herd immunity high, there will always be reservoir of people to infect and exposure to those who have been (partially) vaccinated will add to the possibilties. It might adapt to infect young children and babies for example, we just don't know, hence the precautionary principle (i.e. that potential risk should be avoided as far as possible) should always direct responsible decision making.

 

[deej92]

I see that this Indian variant is raging out of control!

Cases lower this week than last, hospital admissions and patients continuing to decline and deaths down to 7 after there were 20 reported on the same day last week. Today’s death figure of 7 is the lowest reported on a Tuesday since the start of the pandemic, apart from September 1 which was the day after a bank holiday.

And in another positive sign, Boris has said he does not see ‘anything conclusive’ to suggest the path out of lockdown may be altered by the spread of the Indian coronavirus variant.

 

[Bob McC]

So smug.

 

[tiggers]

So smug.

For now