In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
Again, 'the historical Jesus' not 'the historicity of Jesus.'
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
Those terms mean the same thing but with different grammar.
But in New Testament Studies, to explain patiently yet again, they bear very specific meanings. Something one or two people on here don't seem to grasp.
Is it a bit like the word “weight” in physics: it does not mean (when used in the context of Physics) what most people use the word to mean in everyday speech?
There are two questions. One. Whether Jesus existed. I don't know anyone in the field of ancient history/classics, and also New Testament Studies who questions this. He did. He is loads better authenticated than most known characters from the ancient world.
Two. What did he do, believe and say. Given Jesus's cultural and religious significance ever since, and the intrinsic difficulties of the sources (eg legendary birth narratives) this is a top importance question with multiple problems which will never go away.
Keir Starmer suggests Labour will hold back in seats where the Liberal Democrats are best placed to defeat Tory MPs at the next election
This intvw with @ayeshahazarika is the furthest he's gone to suggest an informal pact with other opposition parties
This would clearly be a sensible move - but let's see if this actually goes ahead as we've heard this before
Capitulation
Common sense - if Farage had stood down in the last election Boris would have had a 120 seat majority rather than 80.
There are a whole set of seats where it makes sense for Labour to stand down and use their campaigners in a neighbouring seat. For instance let the Lib Dems have Chesham, Beaconsfield and St Albans while labour focus on Hemel Hempstead, High Wycombe, Watford and Uxbridge.
It is utterly pointless from a Labour POV, putting any money into Guildford and Winchester.
If you are a Corbynite only a Labour majority will do. After the LDs went into government with the Tories in 2010 for them a vote for the LDs rather than Labour is just a vote for Tory lite
Horseshit. By your own definition you are not a Tory anyway having voted for ANOTHER PARTY. So you can't even harrumph about your current party any more never mind your previous party or any others.
What point are you poorly attempting to make here?
My original one, for Corbynites only a Labour majority will do.
After the 2010 to 2015 Tory and LD coalition the LDs are not trusted by the leftwing of the Labour Party
After the 2010 to 2015 coalition, you'd hope Keir Starmer has an actual agreement with the LibDems and is not simply trusting his own political instincts. For one thing, if the LibDems do well at the next election, will the new MPs be able to outvote Ed Davey on whether to cuddle up with the red blanket or the blue?
No. In the Liberal Democrats any such decision would have to be approved by the membership, with whatever other party. Some of our PB posters think the Lib Dems work the same as the Tories and Labour - just a matter of follow-my-leader. They are wrong.
So Keir Starmer wants Labour not to compete with LibDems on the basis that LibDems *might* support Labour after an election, because Ed Davey will not be able to guarantee the members' vote. Genius is not the word. Has Starmer at least got a non-compete agreement?
The trouble with you Tories is that you want everything to be cut and dried before the hay has even started to grow. I think if a Starmer Government can come up with policies which are acceptable to Lib Dems, then the Lib Dem MPs would almost certainly vote for them. No pre-agreed guarantee needed.
The same would hold good if an imaginary Conservative government came up with Liberal policies. My imagination finds that rather difficult though, given the nature of the Conservative Party under the present set of ministers.
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
Again, 'the historical Jesus' not 'the historicity of Jesus.'
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
Those terms mean the same thing but with different grammar.
But in New Testament Studies, to explain patiently yet again, they bear very specific meanings. Something one or two people on here don't seem to grasp.
Is it a bit like the word “weight” in physics: it does not mean (when used in the context of Physics) what most people use the word to mean in everyday speech?
That might be one comparison, certainly. I would say it's also like the word 'structure' in Holocaust studies, which is a derivative from an old debate of the 'structuralist' (the Holocaust happened because of the choices, mainly ad hoc, of the Nazi regime in certain time points) vs 'intentionalist' (the idea was to kill all Jews from the start).
Or, indeed, in medieval studies, where 'Ricardian' might in normal language mean studies of the period of time when a king called Richard was on the throne, but actually means the writing of apologias for Richard III.
Interesting: I’d only ever heard of “Ricardian” as a school of economics.
That's interesting in itself, as all three Richards were chiefly notorious in their own time for being thieving b'stards. Richard II stole the Duchy of Lancaster. Richard III stole the lands of the Countess of Oxford and eventually the whole country. And Richard I memorably stole - a falcon. Which may sound trite, but in seizing it from a peasant he caused a riot which very nearly cost him his life.
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
Again, 'the historical Jesus' not 'the historicity of Jesus.'
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
Those terms mean the same thing but with different grammar.
But in New Testament Studies, to explain patiently yet again, they bear very specific meanings. Something one or two people on here don't seem to grasp.
Is it a bit like the word “weight” in physics: it does not mean (when used in the context of Physics) what most people use the word to mean in everyday speech?
That might be one comparison, certainly. I would say it's also like the word 'structure' in Holocaust studies, which is a derivative from an old debate of the 'structuralist' (the Holocaust happened because of the choices, mainly ad hoc, of the Nazi regime in certain time points) vs 'intentionalist' (the idea was to kill all Jews from the start).
Or, indeed, in medieval studies, where 'Ricardian' might in normal language mean studies of the period of time when a king called Richard was on the throne, but actually means the writing of apologias for Richard III.
Interesting: I’d only ever heard of “Ricardian” as a school of economics.
That's interesting in itself, as all three Richards were chiefly notorious in their own time for being thieving b'stards. Richard II stole the Duchy of Lancaster. Richard III stole the lands of the Countess of Oxford and eventually the whole country. And Richard I memorably stole - a falcon. Which may sound trite, but in seizing it from a peasant he caused a riot which very nearly cost him his life.
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
Again, 'the historical Jesus' not 'the historicity of Jesus.'
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
Those terms mean the same thing but with different grammar.
But in New Testament Studies, to explain patiently yet again, they bear very specific meanings. Something one or two people on here don't seem to grasp.
Is it a bit like the word “weight” in physics: it does not mean (when used in the context of Physics) what most people use the word to mean in everyday speech?
That might be one comparison, certainly. I would say it's also like the word 'structure' in Holocaust studies, which is a derivative from an old debate of the 'structuralist' (the Holocaust happened because of the choices, mainly ad hoc, of the Nazi regime in certain time points) vs 'intentionalist' (the idea was to kill all Jews from the start).
Or, indeed, in medieval studies, where 'Ricardian' might in normal language mean studies of the period of time when a king called Richard was on the throne, but actually means the writing of apologias for Richard III.
Interesting: I’d only ever heard of “Ricardian” as a school of economics.
That's interesting in itself, as all three Richards were chiefly notorious in their own time for being thieving b'stards. Richard II stole the Duchy of Lancaster. Richard III stole the lands of the Countess of Oxford and eventually the whole country. And Richard I memorably stole - a falcon. Which may sound trite, but in seizing it from a peasant he caused a riot which very nearly cost him his life.
So they all had a good grasp of economics...
What did they think about rent?
That it should be paid in cash when they demanded it...
Anyone know if there has actually been any shortages of turkeys, wine, chocolates etc etc etc this Christmas?
Turkeys in plentiful supply - and heavily reduced - at Tesco. The fancy ones down from £49 to £11, regular down from £29 to £8. I assume the panic resulted in everyone buying too early, leaving excess stock by this afternoon. There seems to be a price war going on on veg, too. They can’t give it away. Aldi is 9p across the board.
I was in Markies this morning and it was the same. A lot of very fancy Turkeys with stuffing and bacon looking rather urgently for a good home. My wife has always left shopping for our turkey until later on Christmas eve. One year she even got a good sized bird for free from Tesco's (she had a fair sized trolley of other stuff to be fair). This year I told her that this was too much of a risk so we bought ours early and expensive. I am expecting a proper telling off at some point. Personally, I blame PB.
Why? It’s an opportunity!
Ruefully admit that she is far better than you at shopping and provisioning and it’s only logical - in the interests of the family indeed - that it be left to her in future
They have more of a one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
Do you reckon we don't need more restrictions because (1) you believe the "70% milder" figure and/or you think SAGE is wrong that 90% milder is what's required, and/or (2) you believe Omicron has miraculously gone from an R number of 3-5 to ~1 overnight and is going to stay there?
This is turning into more of a psychological exercise than a scientific one, to my mind.
Chris, I think our actual infections is huge, with very few (yet) turning up in hospital. SA data suggests much shorter times in hospital. Studies suggest omicron is primarily infecting the bronchial, not the lungs. We have boosted the elderly and most adults (defined as over 50%). You might be right, and a tidal wave of shit is already baked in. It doesn’t look like it though.
So - just to try to translate that into an answer to the question I asked - you don't doubt that there are going to be tens of millions of infections in a few weeks rather than one or two millions, but you think that Omicron is so much milder than Delta that it's going to be fine?
What do you think will be the highest rate that the ONS measure? To get tens of millions in a few weeks it would surely need to be more than 1 in 10, given how long you stay infected for.
That's a strange way of looking at it.
ONS will measure whatever number of people are infected - if their infrastructure holds up.
The questions to ask are how many people are susceptible to infection - which I'd say is roughly half of the population - and what the R number is. That was estimated at 3-5 initially, which would indicate 80-90% of the susceptible population are going to be infected. It may be lower now because people have changed their behaviour, but how low do you think a voluntary change of behaviour will take it? And what evidence do you have to support whatever number you come up with?
How is it strange? It’s the best method of working out how many people are infected at once. In order to meet your tens of millions in a few weeks, that rate is going to have to be very high. And their infrastructure? It’s randomised testing, so there should be no issue at all with a very high prevalence.
And I noticed you avoided answering the question.
I mean it's strange to ask what is the rate of infection that the ONS will measure. The question is just what the rate of infection will be, regardless of who measures it!
As for the stuff about not answering the question - I said I thought half the population was susceptible, and if people hadn't modified their behaviour 80-90% of that half would have been infected. Now maybe a bit less. How much less depends on how much people have modified their behaviour - and how much that will continue - but I don't think much less. Maybe 70-80%?
They have more of a one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
Do you reckon we don't need more restrictions because (1) you believe the "70% milder" figure and/or you think SAGE is wrong that 90% milder is what's required, and/or (2) you believe Omicron has miraculously gone from an R number of 3-5 to ~1 overnight and is going to stay there?
This is turning into more of a psychological exercise than a scientific one, to my mind.
Chris, I think our actual infections is huge, with very few (yet) turning up in hospital. SA data suggests much shorter times in hospital. Studies suggest omicron is primarily infecting the bronchial, not the lungs. We have boosted the elderly and most adults (defined as over 50%). You might be right, and a tidal wave of shit is already baked in. It doesn’t look like it though.
So - just to try to translate that into an answer to the question I asked - you don't doubt that there are going to be tens of millions of infections in a few weeks rather than one or two millions, but you think that Omicron is so much milder than Delta that it's going to be fine?
What do you think will be the highest rate that the ONS measure? To get tens of millions in a few weeks it would surely need to be more than 1 in 10, given how long you stay infected for.
That's a strange way of looking at it.
ONS will measure whatever number of people are infected - if their infrastructure holds up.
The questions to ask are how many people are susceptible to infection - which I'd say is roughly half of the population - and what the R number is. That was estimated at 3-5 initially, which would indicate 80-90% of the susceptible population are going to be infected. It may be lower now because people have changed their behaviour, but how low do you think a voluntary change of behaviour will take it? And what evidence do you have to support whatever number you come up with?
How is it strange? It’s the best method of working out how many people are infected at once. In order to meet your tens of millions in a few weeks, that rate is going to have to be very high. And their infrastructure? It’s randomised testing, so there should be no issue at all with a very high prevalence.
And I noticed you avoided answering the question.
I mean it's strange to ask what is the rate of infection that the ONS will measure. The question is just what the rate of infection will be, regardless of who measures it!
As for the stuff about not answering the question - I said I thought half the population was susceptible, and if people hadn't modified their behaviour 80-90% of that half would have been infected. Now maybe a bit less. How much less depends on how much people have modified their behaviour - and how much that will continue - but I don't think much less. Maybe 70-80%?
Because that's the best way to measure the current rate of infection in the country. Unless you know of another way?
So if 80% of people get infected with Covid in the next few weeks, what do you expect the highest weekly rate of incidence to be. It would surely be close to 1 in 10. Maybe 1 in 8?
They have more of a one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
Do you reckon we don't need more restrictions because (1) you believe the "70% milder" figure and/or you think SAGE is wrong that 90% milder is what's required, and/or (2) you believe Omicron has miraculously gone from an R number of 3-5 to ~1 overnight and is going to stay there?
This is turning into more of a psychological exercise than a scientific one, to my mind.
Chris, I think our actual infections is huge, with very few (yet) turning up in hospital. SA data suggests much shorter times in hospital. Studies suggest omicron is primarily infecting the bronchial, not the lungs. We have boosted the elderly and most adults (defined as over 50%). You might be right, and a tidal wave of shit is already baked in. It doesn’t look like it though.
So - just to try to translate that into an answer to the question I asked - you don't doubt that there are going to be tens of millions of infections in a few weeks rather than one or two millions, but you think that Omicron is so much milder than Delta that it's going to be fine?
Actually I do doubt tens of millions of infections. Yes re infection is happening, but most who have had Covid plus vaccines won’t get it again. And if they do it’ll likely be mild. I think that there is a much much bigger pool of asymptomatic cases and folk who think they have a sniffle, than previous.
Why didn't the eagles drop the ring into Mount Doom?
Oh, not that bible.
Ity's the same with Hamlet's delay.
If Hamlet didn't delay There would be no play.
I remember writing that for pretty much an entire English essay with a title of 'Explain why Hamlet procrastinates' and my rather irritated English teacher gave me zero for it,
One way to visualise what a less virulent variant such as Omicron may mean is to imagine the distribution of symptom severity being shifted towards a 'milder symptom mean' relative to the Delta variant (green: asymptomatic; yellow: poorly; red: seriously ill).
Competition update… away from the computer today, so just confirmation that, with boosters today at just over 600,000, @Northern_Al remains remains in pole position… the big unknown is how the boosters delivered over the weekend are reported: will it be a single drop reported on the 27th, putting the poster formerly known as @Philip_Thompson in the lead, or will each days figure be reported… I think it’s the latter, reading the notes on the Dashboard, with England and NI reporting each day on the 27th and Scotland and Wales filling in on the 29th…
They have more of a one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
Do you reckon we don't need more restrictions because (1) you believe the "70% milder" figure and/or you think SAGE is wrong that 90% milder is what's required, and/or (2) you believe Omicron has miraculously gone from an R number of 3-5 to ~1 overnight and is going to stay there?
This is turning into more of a psychological exercise than a scientific one, to my mind.
Chris, I think our actual infections is huge, with very few (yet) turning up in hospital. SA data suggests much shorter times in hospital. Studies suggest omicron is primarily infecting the bronchial, not the lungs. We have boosted the elderly and most adults (defined as over 50%). You might be right, and a tidal wave of shit is already baked in. It doesn’t look like it though.
So - just to try to translate that into an answer to the question I asked - you don't doubt that there are going to be tens of millions of infections in a few weeks rather than one or two millions, but you think that Omicron is so much milder than Delta that it's going to be fine?
What do you think will be the highest rate that the ONS measure? To get tens of millions in a few weeks it would surely need to be more than 1 in 10, given how long you stay infected for.
That's a strange way of looking at it.
ONS will measure whatever number of people are infected - if their infrastructure holds up.
The questions to ask are how many people are susceptible to infection - which I'd say is roughly half of the population - and what the R number is. That was estimated at 3-5 initially, which would indicate 80-90% of the susceptible population are going to be infected. It may be lower now because people have changed their behaviour, but how low do you think a voluntary change of behaviour will take it? And what evidence do you have to support whatever number you come up with?
One thing to note is that omicron R0 may not be that much bigger than delta, but the time from infection to infectious is much reduced, hence a steeper infection curve.
I forgot about Big Dom's claim he was going to drop the hammer on this.
I think we've all been waiting for Big Dom to move. Letting someone else take the credit for Boris's defenestration would be almost unthinkable. Particularly if as rumoured Allegra is making a return to journalism.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
Hospitalisations definitely ticking up now, especially in London.
386 for 22nd, which is nearly double for the same day the week before.
I've found your commentary on Omicron intriguing, were you quite anti lockdown before?
Early 2020 - Phase #1 - My take was early on, we need to be hard, close the borders etc. I saw the data out of China, out of Italy and it was clearly bad, we weren't being strict enough or reacting fast enough.
Mid / Late 2020 - Phase #2 - I then believed we needed a set of rules / restrictions which were consistent, no chop and changing. This nonsense of having different ever changing tiers, where towns a few miles apart could have radically different rules. Also I was anti this idea we could forget about COVID, all bugger off around Europe again for a bit of sun. While we waited for vaccinations, I think we still needed to be careful.
2021 - Phase 3 - We have had the roll out of vaccinations I am much more relaxed about the situation. It isn't a let it rip, but the data is clear if you aren't vulnerable and fully vaccinated, risk from COVID really isn't worth worrying about anymore than getting cancer etc.
I have long since come to terms with us all catching at some point, probably multiple times. Now if you are very vulnerable that is still concerning, but personally, no. Now, that doesn't mean I am super keen on exposing myself to massive high risk situations e.g. a gig with 1000s in a small sweaty room.
Hospitalisations definitely ticking up now, especially in London.
386 for 22nd, which is nearly double for the same day the week before.
Hospitalisations have been going up in London for ages. In proportion to the excuses as to why they weren't *real* hospitalisations, true... but nonetheless....
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
Does anyone else think Nicholas Witchell is an excellent argument for republicanism, on the grounds nobody should be forced to have to put up with him whether they like it or not?
Does anyone else think Nicholas Witchell is an excellent argument for republicanism, on the grounds nobody should be forced to have to put up with him whether they like it or not?
Well, the next King of England, Prince Charles is on record - "I can't bear that man. I mean, he's so awful, he really is."
So add that to the environmentalism, ethnic minority issues, housing etc in the plus column for Charlie.
Does anyone else think Nicholas Witchell is an excellent argument for republicanism, on the grounds nobody should be forced to have to put up with him whether they like it or not?
I don't hold it against the Royal Family, but even worse than lots of sports 'journalism' so many Royal Correspondents are just fans with a typewriter.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
Telegraph - The UK has overtaken Israel in the race to become the world’s most boosted nation against Covid. Britain now has the highest take-up of booster coronavirus vaccines across the globe, with 45 per cent of people triple jabbed
I believe Chile has done more 3rd shots, but for most their first two shots were the total duffer Chinese vaccine.
Telegraph - The UK has overtaken Israel in the race to become the world’s most boosted nation against Covid. Britain now has the highest take-up of booster coronavirus vaccines across the globe, with 45 per cent of people triple jabbed
I believe Chile have had more, but their first two shots were duffers.
This is excellent news but we need to get on with round four.
Waning immunity is going to be a big problem for us because we were so early, almost a victim of our own success in a way.
Anyone know if there has actually been any shortages of turkeys, wine, chocolates etc etc etc this Christmas?
Turkeys in plentiful supply - and heavily reduced - at Tesco. The fancy ones down from £49 to £11, regular down from £29 to £8. I assume the panic resulted in everyone buying too early, leaving excess stock by this afternoon. There seems to be a price war going on on veg, too. They can’t give it away. Aldi is 9p across the board.
I was in Markies this morning and it was the same. A lot of very fancy Turkeys with stuffing and bacon looking rather urgently for a good home. My wife has always left shopping for our turkey until later on Christmas eve. One year she even got a good sized bird for free from Tesco's (she had a fair sized trolley of other stuff to be fair). This year I told her that this was too much of a risk so we bought ours early and expensive. I am expecting a proper telling off at some point. Personally, I blame PB.
Sainsbury's just now: did not look for turkeys but almost no fruit left and large gaps on other shelves. Is there some sort of celebration planned? Have we won a test match?
Telegraph - The UK has overtaken Israel in the race to become the world’s most boosted nation against Covid. Britain now has the highest take-up of booster coronavirus vaccines across the globe, with 45 per cent of people triple jabbed
I believe Chile have had more, but their first two shots were duffers.
This is excellent news but we need to get on with round four.
Waning immunity is going to be a big problem for us because we were so early, almost a victim of our own success in a way.
Jenny Harris has been on the news today and basically the answer is, not necessarily. Remember a) these initial studies are based on very very small numbers and b) this is waning against symptomatic infection, not against severe disease and hospitalisation.
If it is that it remains at 90% against severe disease and hospitalisation for 6 months, it might well be better to get the new formulated shot that has been updated. Given all the disruption and havoc it would cause to have all the current people doing jabs on the front line for another 6+ months.
Also, very vulnerable people are already scheduled to get a 4th jab e.g. my father.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
Telegraph - The UK has overtaken Israel in the race to become the world’s most boosted nation against Covid. Britain now has the highest take-up of booster coronavirus vaccines across the globe, with 45 per cent of people triple jabbed
I believe Chile has done more 3rd shots, but for most their first two shots were the total duffer Chinese vaccine.
Dunno. It persuaded them to elect a Lefty President. Seems very effective...
Telegraph - The UK has overtaken Israel in the race to become the world’s most boosted nation against Covid. Britain now has the highest take-up of booster coronavirus vaccines across the globe, with 45 per cent of people triple jabbed
I believe Chile have had more, but their first two shots were duffers.
This is excellent news but we need to get on with round four.
Waning immunity is going to be a big problem for us because we were so early, almost a victim of our own success in a way.
Yes but. Do we prioritise third or fourth? Or the ones who haven't even had a second? We clearly don't have capacity for all at once.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
Anyone know if there has actually been any shortages of turkeys, wine, chocolates etc etc etc this Christmas?
Turkeys in plentiful supply - and heavily reduced - at Tesco. The fancy ones down from £49 to £11, regular down from £29 to £8. I assume the panic resulted in everyone buying too early, leaving excess stock by this afternoon. There seems to be a price war going on on veg, too. They can’t give it away. Aldi is 9p across the board.
I was in Markies this morning and it was the same. A lot of very fancy Turkeys with stuffing and bacon looking rather urgently for a good home. My wife has always left shopping for our turkey until later on Christmas eve. One year she even got a good sized bird for free from Tesco's (she had a fair sized trolley of other stuff to be fair). This year I told her that this was too much of a risk so we bought ours early and expensive. I am expecting a proper telling off at some point. Personally, I blame PB.
Sainsbury's just now: did not look for turkeys but almost no fruit left and large gaps on other shelves. Is there some sort of celebration planned? Have we won a test match?
The pineapples will have been snapped up for post-Xmas pizzas, but what people would want other fruit for, I have no idea?
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
Trouble is, there was such alarmist messages of panic from many of these experts in the runup to Xmas, that one wonders how objective they are being now; there must be tremendous pressure to produce at least some data that doesn’t make them look completely foolish in retrospect?
Telegraph - The UK has overtaken Israel in the race to become the world’s most boosted nation against Covid. Britain now has the highest take-up of booster coronavirus vaccines across the globe, with 45 per cent of people triple jabbed
I believe Chile have had more, but their first two shots were duffers.
This is excellent news but we need to get on with round four.
Waning immunity is going to be a big problem for us because we were so early, almost a victim of our own success in a way.
Jenny Harris has been on the news today and basically the answer is, not necessarily. Remember a) these initial studies are based on very very small numbers and b) this is waning against symptomatic infection, not against severe disease and hospitalisation.
If it is that it remains at 90% against severe disease and hospitalisation for 6 months, it might well be better to get the new formulated shot that has been updated. Given all the disruption and havoc it would cause to have all the current people doing jabs on the front line for another 6+ months.
Also, very vulnerable people are already scheduled to get a 4th jab e.g. my father.
Fair point.
The concern is if there is a mutation in that time, which evades vaccines and immunity wanes, which is not impossible.
I think as of right now we are okay - but in the medium to longer term, we're in quite a lot of trouble if we don't start putting into place action now.
One question we will have to ask is somebody who has had 2 shots + Omicron, or 3 shots + Omicron, is there any need to be jabbing them further for the foreseeable.
It may well be a total waste of time and capacity.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
That's not the same as saying it is as severe as Delta.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
I also wonder whether the mortality rate might decline just from the most vulnerable to COVID already being wiped out by previous waves. If not, it could be brutal for the unvaxxed, even if it gets milder over time. E.g. if it was 1.5% dying first time round, then 1% the next year, then 0.75% the next year. It could easily add up to 5% mortality over a decade.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
That doesn't contradict what I said. And, yes, you are absolutely correct that a situation where Omicron was spreading 10x quicker than Delta but hospitalising half as many people would cause severe problems.
But you said the variant is not milder in unvaccinated people.
And this is where you are wrong. The case-hospitalisation rate, and case-fatality rate for Omicron is going to be lower than for Original or Delta, because it isn't affecting the lungs so much.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
Trouble is, there was such alarmist messages of panic from many of these experts in the runup to Xmas, that one wonders how objective they are being now; there must be tremendous pressure to produce at least some data that doesn’t make them look completely foolish in retrospect?
That's a fair point but the idea that Omicron is less likely to cause death or major disease in the population because of where it impacts the body, is not justified by the evidence that exists. The evidence that exists is that the virus has mutated - but the degree to which it is less dangerous is not certain at all.
What we are seeing is the effect of a virus that has hit a vaccinated population, if the original Coronavirus (which is after all what this has mutated from), we would be seeing a similar effect.
The concerns I have - that have come out of the UK studies - is that protection from the vaccines wanes quickly which means if we are not boosting people, we're going to get a big increase in serious illness and death when a large number of the elderly (which will be soon), get infected again.
The solution has to be how we best ensure continued protection in the population - and that we pray that an actual mutation comes along that is less likely to cause death and that doesn't evade vaccines.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
That's not the same as saying it is as severe as Delta.
No indeed, it's possibly worse. It's on the level as being at least as severe as the original Coronavirus, which is basically what we are seeing: COVID hitting a vaccinated population.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
That's not the same as saying it is as severe as Delta.
No indeed, it's possibly worse. It's on the level as being at least as severe as the original Coronavirus, which is basically what we are seeing: COVID hitting a vaccinated population.
But there have been studies comparing the effects of the two variants on the vaccinated population. This isn't just a case of the vaccination making it seem like the variant is less severe.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
That doesn't contradict what I said. And, yes, you are absolutely correct that a situation where Omicron was spreading 10x quicker than Delta but hospitalising half as many people would cause severe problems.
But you said the variant is not milder in unvaccinated people.
And this is where you are wrong. The case-hospitalisation rate, and case-fatality rate for Omicron is going to be lower than for Original or Delta, because it isn't affecting the lungs so much.
There is no evidence that this is yet the case.
What we have seen so far is only the effect of the virus hitting a vaccinated population - as immunity wanes it is perfectly possible it is just as deadly as the original Coronavirus strain, which is clearly going to cause us big problems.
What you are concluding is that the virus itself is going to cause fewer deaths and fewer hospitalisations but there is no evidence that this is the case. Any more than "vaccines work". But they don't work forever, that is the biggest problem.
I honestly think the impacted area of the body is a real red herring.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
I also wonder whether the mortality rate might decline just from the most vulnerable to COVID already being wiped out by previous waves. If not, it could be brutal for the unvaxxed, even if it gets milder over time. E.g. if it was 1.5% dying first time round, then 1% the next year, then 0.75% the next year. It could easily add up to 5% mortality over a decade.
We should not spare any concern for the unvaccinated, other than those poor people who can't receive inoculation for good medical reasons.
The refusers can go to Hell as far as I'm concerned. They are bunging up the critical care capacity of the hospitals and causing all of this panic over the NHS burning to the ground, and the resultant drive for a permanent programme of restrictions and lockdowns to try to stop it happening.
The answer to pressure on the hospitals isn't to keep on shutting stuff down all the time, it's to deprioritise refusers for medical care. If there is insufficient capacity in ICUs, they get to go into a tent in the hospital car park instead.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
That doesn't contradict what I said. And, yes, you are absolutely correct that a situation where Omicron was spreading 10x quicker than Delta but hospitalising half as many people would cause severe problems.
But you said the variant is not milder in unvaccinated people.
And this is where you are wrong. The case-hospitalisation rate, and case-fatality rate for Omicron is going to be lower than for Original or Delta, because it isn't affecting the lungs so much.
There is no evidence that this is yet the case.
What we have seen so far is only the effect of the virus hitting a vaccinated population - as immunity wanes it is perfectly possible it is just as deadly as the original Coronavirus strain, which is clearly going to cause us big problems.
What you are concluding is that the virus itself is going to cause fewer deaths and fewer hospitalisations but there is no evidence that this is the case. Any more than "vaccines work". But they don't work forever, that is the biggest problem.
I honestly think the impacted area of the body is a real red herring.
No, there is evidence. The imperial study showed there was a reduction in hospitalisation risk for unvaccinated people.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
That's not the same as saying it is as severe as Delta.
No indeed, it's possibly worse. It's on the level as being at least as severe as the original Coronavirus, which is basically what we are seeing: COVID hitting a vaccinated population.
But there have been studies comparing the effects of the two variants on the vaccinated population. This isn't just a case of the vaccination making it seem like the variant is less severe.
The studies specifically said that as immunity wanes, it is as dangerous and impacting as Delta/original Coronavirus. What the studies have so far found is that vaccinations work and immunity being sufficient means the population is protected.
That does nothing if immunity wanes, because at that point we are back to being as bad as the original COVID virus. And the studies specifically pointed out that immunity does not last.
So the solution again, boost the population, maintain immunity. And do it quickly.
And pray the virus doesn't mutate again, into a strain which evades vaccines, which is perfectly possible.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
No, the Scottish study implies it is milder than delta. Comparing outcomes for otherwise identical people makes vaccine status irrelevant.
To refer to the unvaccinated completely misses the point.
It isn't just the unvaccinated, it's everyone. As soon as immunity wanes, the virus becomes almost as bad as the original COVID and/or Delta.
So yes I agree anti-vaxers are stupid but the issue is that if we do not boost the population, especially the elderly who will see immunity wane first, we are going to be in a very big mess in a month or two.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
No, the Scottish study implies it is milder than delta. Comparing outcomes for otherwise identical people makes vaccine status irrelevant.
The Scottish study concludes that in a vaccinated population, the impact is less.
But it also makes - again - specific mention to waning immunity.
In the unvaccinated and those whom immunity has waned, it is almost as bad as the original Coronavirus.
To refer to the unvaccinated completely misses the point.
It isn't just the unvaccinated, it's everyone. As soon as immunity wanes, the virus becomes almost as bad as the original COVID and/or Delta.
So yes I agree anti-vaxers are stupid but the issue is that if we do not boost the population, especially the elderly who will see immunity wane first, we are going to be in a very big mess in a month or two.
"As soon as immunity wanes"... it isn't an on/off switch. And I'm not convinced it is just as severe as the original or Delta variant. The studies are showing a reduces disk in hospitalisation, even in the unvaccinated.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
That's not the same as saying it is as severe as Delta.
No indeed, it's possibly worse. It's on the level as being at least as severe as the original Coronavirus, which is basically what we are seeing: COVID hitting a vaccinated population.
I feel like you're arguing at cross purposes here and maybe it would help if you were more precise about what you mean by "severe" here.
You seem to me to be confusing (a) whether a disease is 'severe' in the sense of "in the typical patient how bad is it going to get" and (b) over the whole population of the country, how much 'severe disease' will we see in, say the next three months. Omicron is 'less severe' in sense a. The quoted part of the study above is saying "even though it's less severe in sense a, the country may see more people in hospital, ie worse in a sense b way, because more people are going to catch it".
To refer to the unvaccinated completely misses the point.
It isn't just the unvaccinated, it's everyone. As soon as immunity wanes, the virus becomes almost as bad as the original COVID and/or Delta.
So yes I agree anti-vaxers are stupid but the issue is that if we do not boost the population, especially the elderly who will see immunity wane first, we are going to be in a very big mess in a month or two.
Immunity starts waning about three weeks after you get jabbed, and slowly declines over time.
So when you say "as soon as immunity wanes" what do you mean? Do you mean when it goes from 94.0% to 93.9%? Or do you mean when protection dips below a certain point?
If the latter, what's that point at which you deem that immunity has waed? Is it 90% against symptopmatic infection? Or is it (say) 75% versus hospitalisation and death?
Or is it the point at which your survival chances are no greater than an unvaccinated person with no previous infection?
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
Milder doesn’t mean no one dies, or gets severely ill. It shifts the window of how ill people get. You are misinterpreting that statement. It even says ‘less pathogenic’.
Overall, we find evidence of a reduction in the risk of hospitalisation for Omicron relative to Delta infections
Not to the original Coronavirus, which is what this strain has mutated from. The problem is that people are assuming, possibly slightly less dangerous than Delta = no problem.
But we saw the mess the original strain caused without vaccines and immunity in the population. The problem is that immunity is now starting to wane in the population and it is very possible a vaccine-resistant strain emerges.
We really aren't out of the woods. I'm not saying "we're fucked" but we really need to be planning for the next six months.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
That doesn't contradict what I said. And, yes, you are absolutely correct that a situation where Omicron was spreading 10x quicker than Delta but hospitalising half as many people would cause severe problems.
But you said the variant is not milder in unvaccinated people.
And this is where you are wrong. The case-hospitalisation rate, and case-fatality rate for Omicron is going to be lower than for Original or Delta, because it isn't affecting the lungs so much.
There is no evidence that this is yet the case.
What we have seen so far is only the effect of the virus hitting a vaccinated population - as immunity wanes it is perfectly possible it is just as deadly as the original Coronavirus strain, which is clearly going to cause us big problems.
What you are concluding is that the virus itself is going to cause fewer deaths and fewer hospitalisations but there is no evidence that this is the case. Any more than "vaccines work". But they don't work forever, that is the biggest problem.
I honestly think the impacted area of the body is a real red herring.
I don’t think you are understanding the studies that have been done tbh.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
Milder doesn’t mean no one dies, or gets severely ill. It shifts the window of how ill people get. You are misinterpreting that statement. It even says ‘less pathogenic’.
The point is that there is no evidence that Omicron is less dangerous than the original Coronavirus = trouble as immunity wanes.
People are incorrectly concluding that it might be milder than Delta and hence it's no problem. But it's at least as bad as the original strain, which is a massive problem as immunity wanes. And we've now found immunity for the vaccines wanes quickly. Strangely missed out in all the headlines.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
That's not the same as saying it is as severe as Delta.
No indeed, it's possibly worse. It's on the level as being at least as severe as the original Coronavirus, which is basically what we are seeing: COVID hitting a vaccinated population.
But there have been studies comparing the effects of the two variants on the vaccinated population. This isn't just a case of the vaccination making it seem like the variant is less severe.
The studies specifically said that as immunity wanes, it is as dangerous and impacting as Delta/original Coronavirus. What the studies have so far found is that vaccinations work and immunity being sufficient means the population is protected.
That does nothing if immunity wanes, because at that point we are back to being as bad as the original COVID virus. And the studies specifically pointed out that immunity does not last.
So the solution again, boost the population, maintain immunity. And do it quickly.
And pray the virus doesn't mutate again, into a strain which evades vaccines, which is perfectly possible.
The virus binds to the ACE2 receptor via the spike protein. To completely evade the vaccine, you would need to get rid of the spike protein. Which is fine, except that also means you ain't going to be infecting us.
Now, the more the spike protein has mutated, then greater the difficulty the vaccine has binding to it. But it also means that the evolutionary pressure on the virus, if it wishes to evade the vaccine, is to become less efficient at binding to the ACE2receptor.
Overall, we find evidence of a reduction in the risk of hospitalisation for Omicron relative to Delta infections
Not to the original Coronavirus, which is what this strain has mutated from. The problem is that people are assuming, possibly slightly less dangerous than Delta = no problem.
But we saw the mess the original strain caused without vaccines and immunity in the population. The problem is that immunity is now starting to wane in the population and it is very possible a vaccine-resistant strain emerges.
We really aren't out of the woods. I'm not saying "we're fucked" but we really need to be planning for the next six months.
Is that the sound of moving goalposts? You said there was no evidence of it being as severe as Delta a few moments ago.
"There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working."
And honestly, who cares about the original variant, that's long gone.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
That doesn't contradict what I said. And, yes, you are absolutely correct that a situation where Omicron was spreading 10x quicker than Delta but hospitalising half as many people would cause severe problems.
But you said the variant is not milder in unvaccinated people.
And this is where you are wrong. The case-hospitalisation rate, and case-fatality rate for Omicron is going to be lower than for Original or Delta, because it isn't affecting the lungs so much.
There is no evidence that this is yet the case.
What we have seen so far is only the effect of the virus hitting a vaccinated population - as immunity wanes it is perfectly possible it is just as deadly as the original Coronavirus strain, which is clearly going to cause us big problems.
What you are concluding is that the virus itself is going to cause fewer deaths and fewer hospitalisations but there is no evidence that this is the case. Any more than "vaccines work". But they don't work forever, that is the biggest problem.
I honestly think the impacted area of the body is a real red herring.
I don’t think you are understanding the studies that have been done tbh.
If you don't wish to debate with me that's fine. But there is no evidence that this strain is less deadly than the original Coronavirus strain, or less dangerous.
All we have seen is that in a vaccinated population, vaccines and immunity protect you. But as that wanes, the population is in danger again.
In six months we are going to be in awful trouble if we don't start making plans now.
To refer to the unvaccinated completely misses the point.
It isn't just the unvaccinated, it's everyone. As soon as immunity wanes, the virus becomes almost as bad as the original COVID and/or Delta.
So yes I agree anti-vaxers are stupid but the issue is that if we do not boost the population, especially the elderly who will see immunity wane first, we are going to be in a very big mess in a month or two.
I’m sorry but this is so wrong it’s funny. Yet again, the immune system does not consist solely of neutralising antibodies. Have a look at t-cell and b-cell function. You’ll see why we probably won’t need to keep jabbing everyone every 3 months.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
Milder doesn’t mean no one dies, or gets severely ill. It shifts the window of how ill people get. You are misinterpreting that statement. It even says ‘less pathogenic’.
The point is that there is no evidence that Omicron is less dangerous than the original Coronavirus = trouble as immunity wanes.
People are incorrectly concluding that it might be milder than Delta and hence it's no problem. But it's at least as bad as the original strain, which is a massive problem as immunity wanes. And we've now found immunity for the vaccines wanes quickly. Strangely missed out in all the headlines.
Can you please define "less dangerous", because this may be the source of the confusion:
When you say "dangerous", as you referring to the country and health system as a whole? Or do you mean to a single infected human being?
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
Milder doesn’t mean no one dies, or gets severely ill. It shifts the window of how ill people get. You are misinterpreting that statement. It even says ‘less pathogenic’.
The point is that there is no evidence that Omicron is less dangerous than the original Coronavirus = trouble as immunity wanes.
People are incorrectly concluding that it might be milder than Delta and hence it's no problem. But it's at least as bad as the original strain, which is a massive problem as immunity wanes. And we've now found immunity for the vaccines wanes quickly. Strangely missed out in all the headlines.
Immunity doesn't just turn off. There's no way we are going to be back in the situation we were in late 2019 where our bodies knew nothing about Covid.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
Milder doesn’t mean no one dies, or gets severely ill. It shifts the window of how ill people get. You are misinterpreting that statement. It even says ‘less pathogenic’.
The point is that there is no evidence that Omicron is less dangerous than the original Coronavirus = trouble as immunity wanes.
People are incorrectly concluding that it might be milder than Delta and hence it's no problem. But it's at least as bad as the original strain, which is a massive problem as immunity wanes. And we've now found immunity for the vaccines wanes quickly. Strangely missed out in all the headlines.
Yes there is! We know that delta is more severe (a bit) than original Covid. Omicron is significantly less severe than delta. The studies that show this compare similar people, so vaccine status is irrelevant.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
That doesn't contradict what I said. And, yes, you are absolutely correct that a situation where Omicron was spreading 10x quicker than Delta but hospitalising half as many people would cause severe problems.
But you said the variant is not milder in unvaccinated people.
And this is where you are wrong. The case-hospitalisation rate, and case-fatality rate for Omicron is going to be lower than for Original or Delta, because it isn't affecting the lungs so much.
There is no evidence that this is yet the case.
What we have seen so far is only the effect of the virus hitting a vaccinated population - as immunity wanes it is perfectly possible it is just as deadly as the original Coronavirus strain, which is clearly going to cause us big problems.
What you are concluding is that the virus itself is going to cause fewer deaths and fewer hospitalisations but there is no evidence that this is the case. Any more than "vaccines work". But they don't work forever, that is the biggest problem.
I honestly think the impacted area of the body is a real red herring.
No, there is evidence. The imperial study showed there was a reduction in hospitalisation risk for unvaccinated people.
Wasn't it 11% reduction compared to Delta for those without immunity? Better than the other way round, but not a massive difference
I will offer you 10-1 that case-fatality rates and case-hospitalisation rates for Omicron will be lower than for Original variant Covid in the unvaccinated.
And honestly, who cares about the original variant, that's long gone.
In theory one could have a game-theory style loop, where delta wins in an all-original-strain environment, omicron beats delta, and original-strain dominates in an all-delta environment, I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely in the real world...
Surely there’s a small but sizeable number of old-ish people who have had two doses but no booster. They should give us a good indication of how important the boosters are to stopping people getting hospitalised.
I have to say, I thought the urgency of the booster campaign is because it might reduce the spread and protect the unvaccinated.
To refer to the unvaccinated completely misses the point.
It isn't just the unvaccinated, it's everyone. As soon as immunity wanes, the virus becomes almost as bad as the original COVID and/or Delta.
So yes I agree anti-vaxers are stupid but the issue is that if we do not boost the population, especially the elderly who will see immunity wane first, we are going to be in a very big mess in a month or two.
No it doesn't, you misunderstood the quotation you used.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic
Thus dies mean that it's milder than prior variants of Covid, but it's more infectious. So it's saying o. A population wide level as opposed to individual level it can still be serious.
But it's nothing to do with waning immunity. It is milder, and as it's so infectious people will be getting a natural boost very soon via a milder infection.
I will offer you 10-1 that case-fatality rates and case-hospitalisation rates for Omicron will be lower than for Original variant Covid in the unvaccinated.
£10 to £100.
Deal?
A fair bet would be in those unvaccinated and with no previous exposure to coronavirus - but might be problems identifying those never exposed. Also treatments have improved.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
That's simply not true: Covid has mutated in Omicron to become more transmissable. The mutations make it multiply more easily in the upper respiratory tract, because that means that it is more likely to be expelled by a cough or a sneeze. (Hence 70x more transmissable.)
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
Milder doesn’t mean no one dies, or gets severely ill. It shifts the window of how ill people get. You are misinterpreting that statement. It even says ‘less pathogenic’.
The point is that there is no evidence that Omicron is less dangerous than the original Coronavirus = trouble as immunity wanes.
People are incorrectly concluding that it might be milder than Delta and hence it's no problem. But it's at least as bad as the original strain, which is a massive problem as immunity wanes. And we've now found immunity for the vaccines wanes quickly. Strangely missed out in all the headlines.
Yes there is! We know that delta is more severe (a bit) than original Covid. Omicron is significantly less severe than delta. The studies that show this compare similar people, so vaccine status is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant. Vaccinated people might be getting Delta because their immune systems are buggered. Whereas they might be getting Omicron just because the vaccines don't work that well against getting Omicron.
There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Your first statement is wrong - the Scottish study directly shows that omicron is less severe than delta by comparing outcomes in similarly vacinated people. Of course the vaccines are crucial too, but the evidence is that both omicron is intrinsically milder, putatively because it is now a bronchial infection, rather than lungs, and that the vaccines work, especially when boosted.
In vaccinated people yes - but the variant itself is not milder. There's very little evidence of that.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
Can CFRs for the original variant be accurately determined given mass testing only began at the tail end of the first wave?
Comments
Two. What did he do, believe and say. Given Jesus's cultural and religious significance ever since, and the intrinsic difficulties of the sources (eg legendary birth narratives) this is a top importance question with multiple problems which will never go away.
So they all had a good grasp of economics...
Oh, not that bible.
'Apply for Irish passport if you can, advises DUP MP Ian Paisley'
Ruefully admit that she is far better than you at shopping and provisioning and it’s only logical - in the interests of the family indeed - that it be left to her in future
As for the stuff about not answering the question - I said I thought half the population was susceptible, and if people hadn't modified their behaviour 80-90% of that half would have been infected. Now maybe a bit less. How much less depends on how much people have modified their behaviour - and how much that will continue - but I don't think much less. Maybe 70-80%?
386 for 22nd, which is nearly double for the same day the week before.
One Vaccination scheme in West Yorkshire, dealing with high vaccine hesitancy, is called 'The Bradford District and Craven Vaccination Scheme.'
So if 80% of people get infected with Covid in the next few weeks, what do you expect the highest weekly rate of incidence to be. It would surely be close to 1 in 10. Maybe 1 in 8?
If Hamlet didn't delay
There would be no play.
But the immunity is waning quickly and if we do not start to vaccinate people again we're going to be in a real mess.
Why was this ever a feature?
Mid / Late 2020 - Phase #2 - I then believed we needed a set of rules / restrictions which were consistent, no chop and changing. This nonsense of having different ever changing tiers, where towns a few miles apart could have radically different rules. Also I was anti this idea we could forget about COVID, all bugger off around Europe again for a bit of sun. While we waited for vaccinations, I think we still needed to be careful.
2021 - Phase 3 - We have had the roll out of vaccinations I am much more relaxed about the situation. It isn't a let it rip, but the data is clear if you aren't vulnerable and fully vaccinated, risk from COVID really isn't worth worrying about anymore than getting cancer etc.
I have long since come to terms with us all catching at some point, probably multiple times. Now if you are very vulnerable that is still concerning, but personally, no. Now, that doesn't mean I am super keen on exposing myself to massive high risk situations e.g. a gig with 1000s in a small sweaty room.
Which is why as immunity wanes, the impact is likely to be far greater. And in the unvaccinated the impact seems almost as bad as Delta, that is not a "more mild" virus.
The solution here, is clearly a fourth round of boosters, urgently.
Does anyone else think Nicholas Witchell is an excellent argument for republicanism, on the grounds nobody should be forced to have to put up with him whether they like it or not?
So add that to the environmentalism, ethnic minority issues, housing etc in the plus column for Charlie.
https://twitter.com/DehennaDavison/status/1474407353122439173?s=20
11 million to go, with 2.37 million left for the over 50s
I believe Chile has done more 3rd shots, but for most their first two shots were the total duffer Chinese vaccine.
Waning immunity is going to be a big problem for us because we were so early, almost a victim of our own success in a way.
If it is that it remains at 90% against severe disease and hospitalisation for 6 months, it might well be better to get the new formulated shot that has been updated. Given all the disruption and havoc it would cause to have all the current people doing jabs on the front line for another 6+ months.
Also, very vulnerable people are already scheduled to get a 4th jab e.g. my father.
But those mutations came at a cost: while it is great at multiplying in your air passages above your lungs, it doesn't bind as easily in your lungs. This means that - vaccinated or not - you are far less likely to end up on mechanical ventilation. And that means that - while it's probably still a fair bit worse than seasonal influenza for the unvaccinated - it is nowhere near as bad as Original or Delta Covid.
See the University of Hong Kong study here: https://www.med.hku.hk/en/news/press/20211215-omicron-sars-cov-2-infection
Seems very effective...
Do we prioritise third or fourth? Or the ones who haven't even had a second? We clearly don't have capacity for all at once.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic. Therefore, taken together with our recent studies showing that the Omicron variant can partially escape immunity from vaccines and past infection, the overall threat from Omicron variant is likely to be very significant.’
The concern is if there is a mutation in that time, which evades vaccines and immunity wanes, which is not impossible.
I think as of right now we are okay - but in the medium to longer term, we're in quite a lot of trouble if we don't start putting into place action now.
It may well be a total waste of time and capacity.
I also wonder whether the mortality rate might decline just from the most vulnerable to COVID already being wiped out by previous waves. If not, it could be brutal for the unvaxxed, even if it gets milder over time. E.g. if it was 1.5% dying first time round, then 1% the next year, then 0.75% the next year. It could easily add up to 5% mortality over a decade.
But you said the variant is not milder in unvaccinated people.
And this is where you are wrong. The case-hospitalisation rate, and case-fatality rate for Omicron is going to be lower than for Original or Delta, because it isn't affecting the lungs so much.
- Cases rising. London in a league of it's own. But R is turning across the UK. And well before Christmas.
- Admissions are going up slowly. This is still down to the relatively smaller increases in older patients. So far
- Deaths going down across the UK, so far.
The big question - Will the fall in R in London continue and lead the way for a fall in R back to 1?
What we are seeing is the effect of a virus that has hit a vaccinated population, if the original Coronavirus (which is after all what this has mutated from), we would be seeing a similar effect.
The concerns I have - that have come out of the UK studies - is that protection from the vaccines wanes quickly which means if we are not boosting people, we're going to get a big increase in serious illness and death when a large number of the elderly (which will be soon), get infected again.
The solution has to be how we best ensure continued protection in the population - and that we pray that an actual mutation comes along that is less likely to cause death and that doesn't evade vaccines.
https://youtu.be/YNcN5f3vwro?t=75
What we have seen so far is only the effect of the virus hitting a vaccinated population - as immunity wanes it is perfectly possible it is just as deadly as the original Coronavirus strain, which is clearly going to cause us big problems.
What you are concluding is that the virus itself is going to cause fewer deaths and fewer hospitalisations but there is no evidence that this is the case. Any more than "vaccines work". But they don't work forever, that is the biggest problem.
I honestly think the impacted area of the body is a real red herring.
The refusers can go to Hell as far as I'm concerned. They are bunging up the critical care capacity of the hospitals and causing all of this panic over the NHS burning to the ground, and the resultant drive for a permanent programme of restrictions and lockdowns to try to stop it happening.
The answer to pressure on the hospitals isn't to keep on shutting stuff down all the time, it's to deprioritise refusers for medical care. If there is insufficient capacity in ICUs, they get to go into a tent in the hospital car park instead.
That does nothing if immunity wanes, because at that point we are back to being as bad as the original COVID virus. And the studies specifically pointed out that immunity does not last.
So the solution again, boost the population, maintain immunity. And do it quickly.
And pray the virus doesn't mutate again, into a strain which evades vaccines, which is perfectly possible.
It isn't just the unvaccinated, it's everyone. As soon as immunity wanes, the virus becomes almost as bad as the original COVID and/or Delta.
So yes I agree anti-vaxers are stupid but the issue is that if we do not boost the population, especially the elderly who will see immunity wane first, we are going to be in a very big mess in a month or two.
But it also makes - again - specific mention to waning immunity.
In the unvaccinated and those whom immunity has waned, it is almost as bad as the original Coronavirus.
You seem to me to be confusing (a) whether a disease is 'severe' in the sense of "in the typical patient how bad is it going to get" and (b) over the whole population of the country, how much 'severe disease' will we see in, say the next three months. Omicron is 'less severe' in sense a. The quoted part of the study above is saying "even though it's less severe in sense a, the country may see more people in hospital, ie worse in a sense b way, because more people are going to catch it".
So when you say "as soon as immunity wanes" what do you mean? Do you mean when it goes from 94.0% to 93.9%? Or do you mean when protection dips below a certain point?
If the latter, what's that point at which you deem that immunity has waed? Is it 90% against symptopmatic infection? Or is it (say) 75% versus hospitalisation and death?
Or is it the point at which your survival chances are no greater than an unvaccinated person with no previous infection?
Overall, we find evidence of a reduction in the risk of hospitalisation for Omicron relative to Delta infections
Not to the original Coronavirus, which is what this strain has mutated from. The problem is that people are assuming, possibly slightly less dangerous than Delta = no problem.
But we saw the mess the original strain caused without vaccines and immunity in the population. The problem is that immunity is now starting to wane in the population and it is very possible a vaccine-resistant strain emerges.
We really aren't out of the woods. I'm not saying "we're fucked" but we really need to be planning for the next six months.
People are incorrectly concluding that it might be milder than Delta and hence it's no problem. But it's at least as bad as the original strain, which is a massive problem as immunity wanes. And we've now found immunity for the vaccines wanes quickly. Strangely missed out in all the headlines.
Now, the more the spike protein has mutated, then greater the difficulty the vaccine has binding to it. But it also means that the evolutionary pressure on the virus, if it wishes to evade the vaccine, is to become less efficient at binding to the ACE2receptor.
"There seems to be no evidence Omicron is itself milder than Delta, what is happening is that the vaccines are working."
And honestly, who cares about the original variant, that's long gone.
All we have seen is that in a vaccinated population, vaccines and immunity protect you. But as that wanes, the population is in danger again.
In six months we are going to be in awful trouble if we don't start making plans now.
When you say "dangerous", as you referring to the country and health system as a whole? Or do you mean to a single infected human being?
Because you need to be specific.
I will offer you 10-1 that case-fatality rates and case-hospitalisation rates for Omicron will be lower than for Original variant Covid in the unvaccinated.
£10 to £100.
Deal?
I have to say, I thought the urgency of the booster campaign is because it might reduce the spread and protect the unvaccinated.
‘It is also noted that, by infecting many more people, a very infectious virus may cause more severe disease and death even though the virus itself may be less pathogenic
Thus dies mean that it's milder than prior variants of Covid, but it's more infectious. So it's saying o. A population wide level as opposed to individual level it can still be serious.
But it's nothing to do with waning immunity. It is milder, and as it's so infectious people will be getting a natural boost very soon via a milder infection.
1) Less likely to cause death/hospitalisation upon infection than Delta both before vaccines and
2) After a comparable number/type of vaccines
Of course, this is paired with
3) Omi is more infectious
So it's still uncertain which of the two variants is more dangerous in aggregate, through two mechanisms
1) Quantity v quality. Infections X rate of hospilitation
2) Mass isolation of asymptomatic NHS staff leads to excess dwarfs (including non-COVID)