The Reality of Living in Australia and Covid

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

By long term consequences, do you mean “long covid”? My impression from general reading is that this occurs primarily for those who have been severely ill. The healthy young simply don’t get severely ill that I have heard about.

The severely ill may be left with damage that will be with them for life, but again, I am not aware that this issue involves children or young adults.

We don’t know if there are post viral effects that crop up years down the track. We do have something to compare this to though: other coronavirus infections. Nothing has been shown conclusively.

We don’t know of any post vaccine years down the track either, but we have nothing to base any guesswork on. No other even any vaguely similar vaccine or drug that has been used before. We can’t make an educated guess.

SWL

Big picture -- do we have any reason to believe that long term side effects from the vaccine would be any more common and/or serious than long-term consequences from the virus? Why would we intentionally prefer the latter over the former hypothetical contingency? Not rhetorical questions -- genuinely interests in whether there are any reasonable arguments.

Also -- you say long covid is associated with severe cases, and it seems like you assume that long covid is therefore proportionately rarer in young people -- but do we know this? I haven't seen anything proving it one way or the other but a lot of articles indicating that on the contrary long covid is quite common in young people. See for example:

"Even mild cases of COVID-19 in young people often lead to lingering symptoms and health complications that drag on for six months or longer, according to a small Norwegian study published this week in Nature Medicine." https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...s-study-finds/

I'm not seeing any objective reason why young people should not be vaccinated. Although I would be glad to pointed to data which I'm not aware of, and to be corrected by that. The arguments for vaccinating young people, even children, as far as I can see, are:

1. Vaccine does not prevent, but significantly reduces transmission, which will have a beneficial effect on dynamics of the pandemic, possibly a very significant one. Not only the dynamics of community spread, but also mutation.

2. Known risks from vaccination are less than known risks from disease even in young people. Even if the difference in risks is far less dramatic than in older people, still big difference.

3. Known long term side effects of the disease far outweigh known long term side effects of the disease.

4. No reason to assume that unknown long term side effects of the vaccine outweigh unknown long term side effects of the disease.

So I don't see how even the precautionary principle (which I think has been broadly misapplied during this pandemic, for example in the Astra Zeneca vaccine debacle) could indicate hesitating to vaccinate young people. Glad to be corrected if I've missed something or if there is an error in my logic.

[boatman61]

One has to wonder how many of these very vocal Pro Pfizer posters have invested in Big Pharma stocks to boost their incomes.. I reckon the main reason for the antagonism towards the 'at cost' Astra Zeneca vaccine in Europe was because unlike the German/US Pfizer, Moderna vaccines was because there were no billions to be made hence Macron and Merkel putting AZ down and to hell with the people.. as for the US.. they have ever put their interests first and like all the politicians, to hell with the Deplorables.
Funny how there's still tons of AZ floating around Europe and not being sent to the Third World, just being left to date expire..
What's the EU holding AZ to.. 200 million more doses by March but it won't use them.
Frickin Poli's..

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by GordMay

What Dockhead said, and ...

Even as infections soar, the new cases have, so far, not been putting significant pressure on hospital systems, because the intensity of sickness has generally been milder.

The problem with having high transmission rates, even if hospitalization rates don't soar, is that the higher the transmission rate, the more mutations. The more mutations, the more variants, and the more likely there is to be a variant that escapes the vaccine[s], and, eventually, the health-care system may come under extreme pressure, again.

With transmissibility being the key to a COVID variant surviving, and becoming dominant, the reproductive number (R0), showing how many people an infected person could spread the virus to, is key to predicting which variants will become the most concerning.

One of the things we've learned with Delta, is that it squelched out less transmissible variants. It's the most transmissible variants that dominate, and everything else just becomes less and less of an issue. In the U.K. for example, when Delta got a foothold in the country [late 2020] the Alpha variant was almost completely dominated.

As an example, influenza has a reproductive number of two, which means that on average every person who gets sick with flu infects two others. The initial COVID-19 strain had an R0 between two and three.
The Delta Covid-19 variant, on the other hand, currently has an estimated R0 between 5 and 9, with the CDC putting its R0 at 8.5 [nearly as transmissible as chickenpox], in August. [1]

With the original strain of SARS-CoV-2, one person would infect about three people, and each of those people would infect three more. So, after only two rounds of transmission, cases would rise by nine (3 x 3 = 9). After three rounds, cases would rise by 27 (3 x 3 x 3 = 27).
But with the delta variant, the first person would infect six others, who would each then infect six more people. So after two rounds of transmission, cases would already rise by 36 (6 x 6 = 36). After three rounds, cases would surge by 216 (6 x 6 x 6 = 216).

If we allow the virus to run, [more or less] unchecked, in [unvaccinated] children, it WILL mutate, likely evolving into a more transmissible sub-lineage disease, perhaps [perhaps not] more virulent.

Posts are coming thick and fast . It is a good discussion. It has often sent me off hunting for data rather than making assumptions. It also make me think more deeply about the issues and it does help crystallise some ideas, although it leaves me puzzling even more over others.

Regarding mutations, this is occurring worldwide. Total numbers of infections count, not those in any one country. Importantly, if you want to reduce transmission, why would anyone choose to designate a vaccine to someone at next to no risk of severe illness if that vaccine has a high probability of saving a life elsewhere?

Worryingly there is also some thought that the higher the % of the population that is vaccinated, the more it favours mutations that can escape vaccines to thrive. Natural infection does not create the same selective pressure.

SWL

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by boatman61

... Funny how there's still tons of AZ floating around Europe and not being sent to the Third World, just being left to date expire..
What's the EU holding AZ to.. 200 million more doses by March but it won't use them.

Indeed.
WHO head calls for two-month vaccine booster moratorium

... WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told reporters in Hungary’s capital, Budapest, that he was “really disappointed” with the scope of vaccine donations worldwide as many countries struggle to provide first and second doses to more than small fractions of their populations while wealthier nations maintain growing vaccine stockpiles...

➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3479004

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by boatman61

One has to wonder how many of these very vocal Pro Pfizer posters have invested in Big Pharma stocks to boost their incomes.. I reckon the main reason for the antagonism towards the 'at cost' Astra Zeneca vaccine in Europe was because unlike the German/US Pfizer, Moderna vaccines was because there were no billions to be made hence Macron and Merkel putting AZ down and to hell with the people.. as for the US.. they have ever put their interests first and like all the politicians, to hell with the Deplorables.
Funny how there's still tons of AZ floating around Europe and not being sent to the Third World, just being left to date expire..
What's the EU holding AZ to.. 200 million more doses by March but it won't use them.
Frickin Poli's..

I don't personally think it was anything nearly so nefarious. I think the issue with AZ was simply that there were a few cases of blood clotting and people freaked out irrationally, losing grasp of relative risks.


Of course this is not the only irrational freakout we've seen during this pandemic (and this is the Australia thread).

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Posts are coming thick and fast . It is a good discussion. It has often sent me off hunting for data rather than making assumptions. It also make me think more deeply about the issues and it does help crystallise ideas, although it leaves me puzzling even more over others.

That's what happens when smart people debate complicated issues.

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Regarding mutations, this is occurring worldwide. Total numbers of infections count, not those in any one country. Importantly, if you want to reduce transmission, why would anyone choose to designate a vaccine to someone at next to no risk of severe illness if that vaccine has a high probability of saving a life elsewhere?

If we think that pace of vaccination is supply-driven, then yes -- that's a good argument. Is that still the case? Do we really help anyone by slowing down vaccination in our own countries, at this stage? Surely production should just be ramped up more and more, no? I thought distribution was a bigger issue than supply in poorer countries, no?

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Worryingly there is also some thought that the higher the % of the population that is vaccinated, the more it favours mutations that can escape vaccines to thrive. Natural infection does not create the same selective pressure.

SWL

Why would you think that? Maybe I misunderstand the mechanisms of immunity, but doesn't vaccine-induced immunity use the same mechanisms -- antibodies and t-cells -- as naturally-induced immunity? Why would mutation happen any differently? Glad to be enlightened.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

……Why would you think that? Maybe I misunderstand the mechanisms of immunity, but doesn't vaccine-induced immunity use the same mechanisms -- antibodies and t-cells -- as naturally-induced immunity? Why would mutation happen any differently? Glad to be enlightened.

Sorry, I did not phrase that well.

Mutations happen randomly. Whether or a mutated virus thrives is not random. It depends partly on the population.

If almost no one is vaccinated then mutations that result in vaccine resistance (without other changes to the virus’s characteristics) have no advantage. They will not be favoured and are less likely to multiply and dominate. If almost everyone is vaccinated then a mutation that results in resistance has a highly selective advantage.

There may be some merit to saving vaccines for those in need. If a mutation occurs that escapes vaccines and this dominates we are in BIG trouble.

SWL

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Gee, leaders of countries get to fly around in airplanes who would have known.

It probably worked out cheaper without all the security vehicles and people making up the convoy required for a three hour car ride, particularly through western Sydney.

There's half a zillion executives flying all over the place in private jets these days and you want our national leader to stand on the steps hailing a cab to go to the bus station to catch a bus. Get real.

Paul Keeting once sent a 707 to Perth and back, to pick up a member of the house of representatives, who had gone back to his electorate for a birthday party without organizing a second, to ensure he had the number in a vote.

Welcome back

I don't give two hoots about him flying about even if it shows an appalling lack of judgement in the Father's Day instance. My previous post was clear enough but to recap - I can't abide his bull dust, deliberate spinning and half truths about Covid.

As an example, here are a couple of woppers from his own mouth and his own office from 21 Feb 2021.

The Australian Government has secured more than 150 million COVID-19 vaccine doses. Over 50 million doses of AstraZeneca ordered by the Government will be manufactured in Melbourne.

So where are they?


and

The Australian Government has a comprehensive plan to offer COVID-19 vaccines to all Australians by the end of October 2021.

Clearly the plan isn't working.

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/first-covid-19-vaccinations



There are many more...

And if something doesn't go according to plan, the right thing to do is to man up and explain why, not to keep on spinning the dung.

FWIW, Paul K wasn't too perfect either.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Sorry, I did not phrase that well.

Mutations happen randomly. Whether or a mutated virus thrives is not random. It depends partly on the population.

If almost no one is vaccinated then mutations that result in vaccine resistance (without other changes to the virus’s characteristics) have no advantage. They will not be favoured and are less likely to multiply and dominate. If almost everyone is vaccinated then a mutation that results in resistance has a highly selective advantage.

There may be some merit to saving vaccines for those in need. If a mutation occurs that escapes vaccines we are in BIG trouble.

SWL

Still doesn't make sense to me. Viruses don't enounter vaccines; they encounter antibodies and t-cells. Why would there be large scale deviance, between evasion by viruses of naturally conferred immunity, and evasion of vaccine-conferred immunity? "Vaccine resistance" is not at ALL like drug resistance. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6304978/

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Still doesn't make sense to me. Viruses don't enounter vaccines; they encounter antibodies and t-cells. Why would there be large scale deviance, between evasion of naturally conferred immunity, and evasion of vaccine-conferred immunity? See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6304978/

Because post infection immunity and vaccine induced immunity are quite different in this case. The former is to the entire virus (polymorphic). The latter is just to the spike protein involved in binding the virus to target cells.

The article you linked is a general one written before SARS-CoV-2 and the use of mRNA vaccines. I don’t know how relevant it is.

SWL

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Because post infection immunity and vaccine induced immunity are quite different in this case. The former is to the entire virus (polymorphic). The latter is just to the spike protein involved in binding the virus to target cells.

The article you linked is a general one written before SARS-CoV-2 and the use of mRNA vaccines. I don’t know how relevant it is.

SWL

I still don't see how it's better to let the virus circulate more widely, alllowing it the chance to mutatate, avoiding spike protein-sensitive mechanisms as well as other ones, compared to slowing down circulation and thus ALL mutations, by creating more widespread population immunity. I can't even imagine how that could be better in terms of mutation. Any cites?

[mjgill1]

Stockholm syndrome?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-...liday/12648762

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I still don't see how it's better to let the virus circulate more widely, alllowing it the chance to mutatate, avoiding spike protein-sensitive mechanisms as well as other ones, compared to slowing down circulation and thus ALL mutations, by creating more widespread population immunity. I can't even imagine how that could be better in terms of mutation. Any cites?

No citations, just discussing possibilities. I am not saying that it is definitely better to let it spread, although the current thinking is that both the unvaccinated and vaccinated will become infected multiple times over the years, so spread may be inevitable.

I am simply saying that this is a complex situation and particularly given that vaccination does not stop transmission, the best form of management may not simply be to vaccinate absolutely everybody.

Exercising caution with any medical procedure is always extremely prudent.

SWL

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

No citations, just discussing possibilities. I am not saying that it is definitely better to let it spread, although the current thinking is that both the unvaccinated and vaccinated will become infected multiple times over the years, so spread may be inevitable.

I am simply saying that this is a complex situation and particularly given that vaccination does not stop transmission, the best form of management may not simply be to vaccinate absolutely everybody.

Exercising caution with any medical procedure is always extremely prudent.

SWL

MAY. May?! The precautionary principle maddens me in this pandemic. It seems to me to be a lazy and fundamentally incorrect way to balance risks. Just lock everyone down because it MAY help. And forget the cost and forget the other consequences. For example. This is not the way to do this.

Likewise with vaccination. You can't not vaccinate just because it MAY not be optimum. That's just not nearly enough of a reason. You have to do the science and crunch the numbers and do the hard balancing. NOT vaccinating MAY just as well be harmful, maybe really harmful, and on the balance of what (admittedly little) I know, it looks to me likely to be that.


Once again, do we have any reason -- based on numbers, not "maybe might", to think that the risks around vaccination are greater than the risks around infection?

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

MAY. May?! The precautionary principle maddens me in this pandemic. It seems to me to be a lazy and fundamentally incorrect way to balance risks. Just lock everyone down because it MAY help. And forget the cost and forget the other consequences. For example. This is not the way to do this.

Likewise with vaccination. You can't not vaccinate just because it MAY not be optimum. That's just not nearly enough of a reason. You have to do the science and crunch the numbers and do the hard balancing. NOT vaccinating MAY just as well be harmful, maybe really harmful, and on the balance of what (admittedly little) I know, it looks to me likely to be that.


Once again, do we have any reason -- based on numbers, not "maybe might", to think that the risks around vaccination are greater than the risks around infection?

All I can say is there are a lot of “may”s and “maybe”s associated BOTH with any action or inaction associated with this pandemic. The optimal mode of management is simply not known.

As the world is hell bent on the unprecedented act of mass vaccinating those at negligible risk of severe illness, I very, very much hope my fears are unjustified and that you are correct.

SWL