[Misc] Will we have another lockdown ?

[Audax]

In relation to your last point, do you think the work that been done on Covid19 can be easily used to vaccinate against the Coronavirus versions of the common cold?

It would be nice to remove some of the numerous cold viruses our there.

Simple answer: yes. I've literally just finished reading an article about a study that was done in the US that has shown that people who had the common cold before Covid had better outcomes than those who hadn't. Research is ongoing, but there's similarities between Covid and common cold viruses that suggest the body is better able to handle Covid if it's already had a recent common cold encounter - and vice versa should also be true. The article then goes on to discuss how the findings from the research (and that of other studies) may open the door to a "universal" coronavirus / common cold vaccine.

Article is here: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...uses-tied-to-less-severe-covid-19-cases-68146

(Note: not all "common colds" are coronavirus)

 

[Albion Dan]

Have you seen the numbers of blood clots linked to the vaccine compared to the numbers of blood clots linked to the contraceptive pill? Which has been around for decades.

There is an element of risk in EVERY single drug you take. That's why we have clinical trials, to establish the level of risk versus reward. It's just not that hard to understand really.

It's an incredibly week argument to show one person who has died as a result of a complication potentially linked to the vaccine when literally millions of people have died worldwide from the virus.

Literally millions of people died with Covid not of. It's unfair to add potentially on one side of the argument and not the other? I'll DM you some other stuff I'd genuinely be interested to get your take on as wouldnt land well here/is quite scary. I'm really not looking for silly tittle tattle ego driven arguments I think this stuff needs to be debated like adults due to how important it is.

 

[Audax]

I suspect that might not be a good idea. Dealing with cold viruses probably keeps the immune system in practice for when something more serious comes along.

A vaccine still causes the immune system to "practice". That is literally how vaccines work: you introduce something into the body, and the immune system goes to work. Once it's dealt with it once, it remembers how to deal with it in future. The only difference between using a vaccine vs using a live virus is that the vaccine itself is far more benign. In traditional vaccines because the "something" that gets introduced has had its teeth pulled (deactivated virus), or with the new mRNA vaccines because there's no virus in the first place - it just tricks the body into temporarily producing a foreign substance for the immune system to then attack.

 

[Commander]

In relation to your last point, do you think the work that been done on Covid19 can be easily used to vaccinate against the Coronavirus versions of the common cold?

It would be nice to remove some of the numerous cold viruses our there.

No. Because there are far too many different viruses that cause the common cold, I think. It would be impossible to stay ahead of them all. And vaccines are a risk versus reward thing- I've had both Covid jabs because the risk of a complication of the vaccine versus the risk of catching Covid is well worth the trade-off. To have 30 different vaccinations to stop me getting 30 different kinds of cold? No thanks, I'll trust my own immune system.

One of the cold viruses you've probably had is the Spanish flu that killed 50 million people in Europe in 1918. It mutated and mutated and got weaker and weaker (more successful). It didn't go away.

This seems to be the part some people don't understand- managing risk and acceptable levels of risk. Find me virtually any drug in the world and somebody will have had a bad side effect to it. People die from wasp stings.

 

[Audax]

Literally millions of people died with Covid not of. It's unfair to add potentially on one side of the argument and not the other? I'll DM you some other stuff I'd genuinely be interested to get your take on as wouldnt land well here/is quite scary. I'm really not looking for silly tittle tattle ego driven arguments I think this stuff needs to be debated like adults due to how important it is.

Sorry, but that's wrong. While it is true that Covid is far more likely to kill people with other underlying conditions, it is not true to suggest that these people were going to die regardless and actually died of something else. On average, those who have died of Covid have lost around 10 years of their lives. In most cases the underlying conditions are conditions that people can live with for a long time and are relatively easily controlled - things like diabetes.

What we've seen is that Covid attacks those with underlying conditions far more severely than those without, but it is still Covid that is causing death in those people, and it's causing it earlier than it otherwise would have - by years.

 

[Commander]

Literally millions of people died with Covid not of. It's unfair to add potentially on one side of the argument and not the other? I'll DM you some other stuff I'd genuinely be interested to get your take on as wouldnt land well here/is quite scary. I'm really not looking for silly tittle tattle ego driven arguments I think this stuff needs to be debated like adults due to how important it is.

I agree that the 'with' rather than 'of' is an interesting point. The vast majority of people who died with Covid would have died anyway fairly soon, from other health issues. Which, to be honest, is why I think enough is enough and we shouldn't have any more lockdowns now (because the vaccines have made it an acceptable risk). Add in the people dying due to treatment getting delayed as the NHS have to make space for Covid patients instead.

But if one of your parents died 2 years earlier than they would have done because they caught Covid and it tipped the balance on them, that's still a sad and potentially avoidable death. I'm fortunate enough that both my parents are still alive, but ask most people who's parents are deceased and they'd give anything for two more years with them. I can't imagine 'with' rather than 'of' would offer much comfort.

 

[Pint of Ale and a Burger]

Simple answer: yes. I've literally just finished reading an article about a study that was done in the US that has shown that people who had the common cold before Covid had better outcomes than those who hadn't. Research is ongoing, but there's similarities between Covid and common cold viruses that suggest the body is better able to handle Covid if it's already had a recent common cold encounter - and vice versa should also be true. The article then goes on to discuss how the findings from the research (and that of other studies) may open the door to a common cold vaccine.

Article is here: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...uses-tied-to-less-severe-covid-19-cases-68146

Yes I was reading a study from India last night that seems to show that since vaccination for covid has begun there are signs of significant drops in varieties of cold and flu viruses which may point to a link between covid vaccines having an effect on other sars-cov-2 viruses.
The study has not yet been peer scrutinized but interesting none the less.

 

[Albion Dan]

Sorry, but that's wrong. While it is true that Covid is far more likely to kill people with other underlying conditions, it is not true to suggest that these people were going to die regardless and actually died of something else..

I'm sorry but that just simply isn't true and I've got two examples of personal experience to prove it. It was even widely reported that some people who were killed in car accidents had with covid applied to their death certificate.

 

[Audax]

Yes I was reading a study from India last night that seems to show that since vaccination for covid has begun there are signs of significant drops in varieties of cold and flu viruses which may point to a link between covid vaccines having an effect on other sars-cov-2 viruses.
The study has not yet been peer scrutinized but interesting none the less.

Would be interested in seeing that myself - hopefully they've controlled for the effect of lockdowns as part of that study - because lockdown won't have only prevented the spread of Covid, it will also have suppressed the spread of Flu, common cold, and other viral / bacterial infections. One big worry I have about the complete removal of all restrictions that we've had isn't just that it gives Covid an opportunity to really get its teeth in again, it also opens us up to a surge in Flu etc. The government should have kept mandatory mask wearing IMO.

Interestingly enough, around two weeks after I'd been double jabbed I developed symptoms of a cold. PCR test came back negative, which didn't surprise me - it had all the hallmarks of being an old-school common cold: blocked sinus, sore throat (but no significant cough), and ultimately when I did develop a cough it was productive (not the Covid dry cough).

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Sorry, but that's wrong. While it is true that Covid is far more likely to kill people with other underlying conditions, it is not true to suggest that these people were going to die regardless and actually died of something else. On average, those who have died of Covid have lost around 10 years of their lives. In most cases the underlying conditions are conditions that people can live with for a long time and are relatively easily controlled - things like diabetes.

What we've seen is that Covid attacks those with underlying conditions far more severely than those without, but it is still Covid that is causing death in those people, and it's causing it earlier than it otherwise would have - by years.

They are trying to separate and report on people who went in with covid and those who have it when they go into hospital with something else.

If they didn't think it was an issue they wouldn't bother.

 

[Pint of Ale and a Burger]

Literally millions of people died with Covid not of. It's unfair to add potentially on one side of the argument and not the other? I'll DM you some other stuff I'd genuinely be interested to get your take on as wouldnt land well here/is quite scary. I'm really not looking for silly tittle tattle ego driven arguments I think this stuff needs to be debated like adults due to how important it is.

Yes I'm of the same thinking.
I have lots of questions and concerns as I'm sure a lot of people have but it's difficult to ask them without being immediately labelled an antivaxer moron which is a shame because there is obviously a lot of clever people on this forum who could help with peoples questions I think.
I agree we need to debate all this without it becoming an argument.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I'm sorry but that just simply isn't true and I've got two examples of personal experience to prove it. It was even widely reported that some people who were killed in car accidents had with covid applied to their birth certificate.

How many ? How does that compare to the numbers who didn’t have Covid on their death certificate despite dying from the disease (particularly last year) ? I suspect you don’t know the answer to either question and without those answers yours is really not much of an argument at all.

 

[Pint of Ale and a Burger]

Would be interested in seeing that myself - hopefully they've controlled for the effect of lockdowns as part of that study - because lockdown won't have only prevented the spread of Covid, it will also have suppressed the spread of Flu, common cold, and other viral / bacterial infections. One big worry I have about the complete removal of all restrictions that we've had isn't just that it gives Covid an opportunity to really get its teeth in again, it also opens us up to a surge in Flu etc. The government should have kept mandatory mask wearing IMO.

Interestingly enough, around two weeks after I'd been double jabbed I developed symptoms of a cold. PCR test came back negative, which didn't surprise me - it had all the hallmarks of being an old-school common cold: blocked sinus, sore throat (but no significant cough), and ultimately when I did develop a cough it was productive (not the Covid dry cough).

Yes I thought the same about lockdowns being part of the reason.
I can't remember where I stumbled across the study but I will try and find it again and let you know where it is.

 

[Audax]

I'm sorry but that just simply isn't true and I've got two examples of personal experience to prove it. It was even widely reported that some people who were killed in car accidents had with covid applied to their birth certificate.

Two examples vs research done across the entire case load in the UK? I know which I'll believe. Facts are the scientifically established estimates are that the average Covid death has shortened that person's life by a little over 10 years. Underlying conditions or not.

Yes, there will be some in that case load who died "with" Covid but because of their underlying conditions and who would likely have died within days or weeks anyway. But the vast majority? No - they lost years.

Also, on your final point: you've misunderstood that reporting. The issue with people dying in car accidents being included in the death numbers had nothing to do with what was on their death certificates. That was because the government criteria for the daily update death numbers didn't have a time limit on it: to be included you only needed to have had a "positive test" at any point in time. Whether or not Covid is on the death cert. That particular government-chosen metric is a pile of shite (even now they've added the 28 day limit on it) - not just because it was including people it shouldn't longer term, but because it also excludes a lot of people it should include. Have a positive test and die of Covid 30 days later? You aren't included because the criteria is now 28 days. Never had a PCR test because you caught Covid and died in the first wave? Not included because you never had a test.

The current daily reported deaths figure using the government sponsored metric is just under 129,000. The far more accurate method of actually using what's on the death certificate (note: the rules around what gets put on a death cert are pretty stringent. If someone dies in a car accident as a result of that car accident, it *will not* have Covid listed. Unless the driver of the car died of Covid while driving.) Anyway, the death cert numbers currently stand at just over 153,000.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Yes I'm of the same thinking.
I have lots of questions and concerns as I'm sure a lot of people have but it's difficult to ask them without being immediately labelled an antivaxer moron which is a shame because there is obviously a lot of clever people on this forum who could help with peoples questions I think.
I agree we need to debate all this without it becoming an argument.

Perhaps it’s the wild, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that cause the problem ? There are plenty of people on here politely making the case for vaccines and working together as a society. There are others who see conspiracy at every turn.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

For some reason a lot of anti-vaxxers in the States are chiropractors - bizarre

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/14/health/anti-covid-vaxxers.html

 

[Audax]

They are trying to separate and report on people who went in with covid and those who have it when they go into hospital with something else.

If they didn't think it was an issue they wouldn't bother.

They're doing it because it helps with understanding how and why Covid affects some people worse than others, and exactly how and why certain people died.

My objection to Albion Dan's post is because they present a massively over-simplified and generalised view on it. If their contention that "millions" have died "with" Covid (the implication being they would have died within a short time frame regardless), then the estimated years lost through Covid deaths would be substantially lower than 10 years - it'd be less than 1.

The same work that arrived at the 10 years figure also pointed out that the number of excess deaths in 2020 was the highest seen since World War 2. Think about that for a moment - if these people dying of Covid were dying anyway, why would the excess deaths figure rise so high? The answer is simple: Covid killed people years earlier than they otherwise would have. They weren't already "at deaths door" when they caught Covid. Lots of people live long and happy lives while having "underlying conditions", because an awful lot of what get categorised as "underlying conditions" are not immediately life threatening and can managed through life style choices and/or simple drug regimes.

That those underlying conditions make them more vulnerable to Covid doesn't change the fact that Covid is what killed them.

 

[Commander]

Two examples vs research done across the entire case load in the UK? I know which I'll believe. Facts are the scientifically established estimates are that the average Covid death has shortened that person's life by a little over 10 years. Underlying conditions or not.

Yes, there will be some in that case load who died "with" Covid but because of their underlying conditions and who would likely have died within days or weeks anyway. But the vast majority? No - they lost years.

Also, on your final point: you've misunderstood that reporting. The issue with people dying in car accidents being included in the death numbers had nothing to do with what was on their death certificates. That was because the government criteria for the daily update death numbers didn't have a time limit on it: to be included you only needed to have had a "positive test" at any point in time. Whether or not Covid is on the death cert. That particular government-chosen metric is a pile of shite (even now they've added the 28 day limit on it) - not just because it was including people it shouldn't longer term, but because it also excludes a lot of people it should include. Have a positive test and die of Covid 30 days later? You aren't included because the criteria is now 28 days. Never had a PCR test because you caught Covid and died in the first wave? Not included because you never had a test.

The current daily reported deaths figure using the government sponsored metric is just under 129,000. The far more accurate method of actually using what's on the death certificate (note: the rules around what gets put on a death cert are pretty stringent. If someone dies in a car accident as a result of that car accident, it *will not* have Covid listed. Unless the driver of the car died of Covid while driving.) Anyway, the death cert numbers currently stand at just over 153,000.

The thing I don’t understand about the way the government decided to report the death numbers, is that you would have thought they would want to play them down, not big them up. You would have thought the government in charge of a pandemic would want to show how well they are keeping people alive, rather than exaggerating the death figures. It makes no sense.

Unless you believe it is all some kind of control conspiracy. As if BoJo an his band of buffoons have the capability for something like that!

 

[Napper]

"Many of our admissions have not been vaccinated, however. Some want to achieve “natural immunity”; it is unclear whether they realise that the only way to do this is to get the disease instead. Another wants “to see some real data”, as if all the information assessed by the regulatory authorities before approval, and the clear real-world data about the reduction in cases, is somehow fabricated. Someone’s friend got some side-effects from the vaccine so she didn’t have it; guess which one of them ended up in hospital. Most of these people have the decency to look sheepish, or to describe themselves as “one of those idiots”."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/19/i-work-in-an-nhs-covid-ward-and-i-feel-so-angry

nice read and some parts are good for me.

Do note its from " im an NHS Covid ward manager ....anonymous"

Not saying its untrue but the media use a lot of this to scare to get vaccines

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

They're doing it because it helps with understanding how and why Covid affects some people worse than others, and exactly how and why certain people died.

My objection to Albion Dan's post is because they present a massively over-simplified and generalised view on it. If their contention that "millions" have died "with" Covid (the implication being they would have died within a short time frame regardless), then the estimated years lost through Covid deaths would be substantially lower than 10 years - it'd be less than 1.

The same work that arrived at the 10 years figure also pointed out that the number of excess deaths in 2020 was the highest seen since World War 2. Think about that for a moment - if these people dying of Covid were dying anyway, why would the excess deaths figure rise so high? The answer is simple: Covid killed people years earlier than they otherwise would have. They weren't already "at deaths door" when they caught Covid. Lots of people live long and happy lives while having "underlying conditions", because an awful lot of what get categorised as "underlying conditions" are not immediately life threatening and can managed through life style choices and/or simple drug regimes.

That those underlying conditions make them more vulnerable to Covid doesn't change the fact that Covid is what killed them.

Quite, so there is a problem with how it is being report and there are deaths of people "with" I dont think anyone really knows how many there are - its not a conspiracy, just shows how difficult it is to report.

Excess deaths isnt flawless either -

More than half (around 41,000) of the 76,000 excess deaths, from all causes, in England and Wales in 2020 occurred in private homes. A further 25,000 occurred in care homes.

The contribution of COVID-19 to this increase in deaths in private homes is small, at just over 3,000. The increase of non-COVID-19 deaths in private homes is 30% above the five-year average.

The reporting is a mess.