Whilst the extent of waning against severe disease (i.e. that requiring hospitalisation) is less than that against mild disease, even small reductions in protection can result in significant rises in hospitalisations and deaths, particularly in high-risk groups.
The researchers also find that this reduction in neutralising antibodies could impact vaccine efficacy against severe disease. In a worst-case scenario where the decay rate after a booster dose is the same as that observed after the first 2 doses, the study predicts that vaccine efficacy against severe disease (hospitalisation) may drop from 96.5% (95% CrI 96.1%–96.8%) against Delta to 80.1% (76.3%–83.02) against Omicron by 60 days after the primary vaccine course followed by a booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine if antibodies decay at the same rate following the booster as observed following the primary vaccine course. If this rate of decay is half that rate, the drop is estimated to be from 97.6% (95% CrI 97.4%-97.9%) against Delta to 85.9% (95% CrI 83.1%-88.3%) against Omicron. However, this could be further moderated by the increased longevity of T cell-mediated immunity.
The researchers say that whilst these numbers are currently associated with a high degree of uncertainty, they indicate that Omicron-variant specific vaccines and/or further boosters are likely to be needed to restore protection.
Any reduction in effectiveness of the vaccines is going to put a lot of people in hospital - and that is what the data indicates. It's possible T-cell immunity will make a difference but there is no evidence at this stage that is the case - and to do health on the basis of a hunch seems like a very bad idea.
We need to ensure immunity remains high, get the unvaccinated vaccinated ASAP and urgently work out how we maintain immunity. Otherwise the hospitals are going to become overwhelmed over the next few months similarly to Delta.
Action and plans are needed now.
Your quote even mentions T-cells...
I even said that in the post, please read.
It's possible T-cells will make the difference but there is not sufficient evidence to say so. So to claim this is a reason not to ensure immunity remains high otherwise is to ignore the actual evidence that exists.
If and when T-cell evidence comes along, we can discuss it then.
My position is that we need to wait on the real world evidence of hospitalisation etc before we impose restrictions on society. Those restrictions are not cost free. You might be right, @Chris might be right. But I think it is prudent to wait just a bit longer to what is really happening. I get that that seems risky, but in reality we have a bit of a test site running. London. It’s ahead of the curve. If it goes to shit, then we can act.
You're totally missing the point. I am not calling for a lockdown, I am not calling for more restrictions.
I am specifically referring to the risk of these things if immunity continues to wane, which is what all the studies say is the concern. We need to plan for that now, otherwise a lot of people are going to end up in hospital and we really will need a lockdown.
And my point is that the studies you refer to are about nABs, not the whole protection offered by vaccination. We may need more boosters, or omicron may infect all of us and proved long lasting protection via infection. Your assumption is that ‘waning’ is a huge problem, whereas I suspect it isn’t.
And yet that is what the studies actually say is the concern. Your rebuttal isn't based on any actual research
The studies are referring to part of the story not the whole. You are drawing the wrong conclusion - the immune system is a complex multi-factorial process.
I'm reading what the studies say. Just because you don't happen to agree, it doesn't make me wrong.
We don't know, that's exactly the point - and is what I agree with @turbotubbs on
I’m not disagreeing with the studies.
The immune system includes both the innate and adaptive systems (plus a third line I always forget), T cells, memory B cells and the immediate response.
The immediate immune response wanes. It always does. But the memory B cells react rapidly to a new infection with a similar virus triggering massive production of T cells.
You are looking at the immediate levels of antibodies falling and declaring it’s a disaster. It’s not.
IIRC the reduction in antibodies is to be expected - and if it doesn't happen can suggest a problem with the immune system?
This is not a return to austerity. It is an attempt to halt the profligation of policy making bureaucracy that has occurred under BoJo's reign; where the civil service seems to have somehow increased in number by around 50,000. Essentially, the government need to constantly impose these kinds of 'cuts' to just keep everything the same.
The turning point between a falling number of civil servants and a rising number occurred in June 2016. Anyone remember anything that happened around then?
Whilst the extent of waning against severe disease (i.e. that requiring hospitalisation) is less than that against mild disease, even small reductions in protection can result in significant rises in hospitalisations and deaths, particularly in high-risk groups.
The researchers also find that this reduction in neutralising antibodies could impact vaccine efficacy against severe disease. In a worst-case scenario where the decay rate after a booster dose is the same as that observed after the first 2 doses, the study predicts that vaccine efficacy against severe disease (hospitalisation) may drop from 96.5% (95% CrI 96.1%–96.8%) against Delta to 80.1% (76.3%–83.02) against Omicron by 60 days after the primary vaccine course followed by a booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine if antibodies decay at the same rate following the booster as observed following the primary vaccine course. If this rate of decay is half that rate, the drop is estimated to be from 97.6% (95% CrI 97.4%-97.9%) against Delta to 85.9% (95% CrI 83.1%-88.3%) against Omicron. However, this could be further moderated by the increased longevity of T cell-mediated immunity.
The researchers say that whilst these numbers are currently associated with a high degree of uncertainty, they indicate that Omicron-variant specific vaccines and/or further boosters are likely to be needed to restore protection.
Any reduction in effectiveness of the vaccines is going to put a lot of people in hospital - and that is what the data indicates. It's possible T-cell immunity will make a difference but there is no evidence at this stage that is the case - and to do health on the basis of a hunch seems like a very bad idea.
We need to ensure immunity remains high, get the unvaccinated vaccinated ASAP and urgently work out how we maintain immunity. Otherwise the hospitals are going to become overwhelmed over the next few months similarly to Delta.
Action and plans are needed now.
Your quote even mentions T-cells...
I even said that in the post, please read.
It's possible T-cells will make the difference but there is not sufficient evidence to say so. So to claim this is a reason not to ensure immunity remains high otherwise is to ignore the actual evidence that exists.
If and when T-cell evidence comes along, we can discuss it then.
My position is that we need to wait on the real world evidence of hospitalisation etc before we impose restrictions on society. Those restrictions are not cost free. You might be right, @Chris might be right. But I think it is prudent to wait just a bit longer to what is really happening. I get that that seems risky, but in reality we have a bit of a test site running. London. It’s ahead of the curve. If it goes to shit, then we can act.
You're totally missing the point. I am not calling for a lockdown, I am not calling for more restrictions.
I am specifically referring to the risk of these things if immunity continues to wane, which is what all the studies say is the concern. We need to plan for that now, otherwise a lot of people are going to end up in hospital and we really will need a lockdown.
And my point is that the studies you refer to are about nABs, not the whole protection offered by vaccination. We may need more boosters, or omicron may infect all of us and proved long lasting protection via infection. Your assumption is that ‘waning’ is a huge problem, whereas I suspect it isn’t.
And yet that is what the studies actually say is the concern. Your rebuttal isn't based on any actual research
The studies are referring to part of the story not the whole. You are drawing the wrong conclusion - the immune system is a complex multi-factorial process.
I'm reading what the studies say. Just because you don't happen to agree, it doesn't make me wrong.
We don't know, that's exactly the point - and is what I agree with @turbotubbs on
I’m not disagreeing with the studies.
The immune system includes both the innate and adaptive systems (plus a third line I always forget), T cells, memory B cells and the immediate response.
The immediate immune response wanes. It always does. But the memory B cells react rapidly to a new infection with a similar virus triggering massive production of T cells.
You are looking at the immediate levels of antibodies falling and declaring it’s a disaster. It’s not.
The studies themselves say, if immunity wanes we are in trouble. I never used the word disaster.
You disagree with the studies, that's up to you. But it doesn't make me wrong.
Arguing with you is totally pointless.
If the ravens leave the Tower of London then the monarchy will fall.
The studies say that (I) NAbs are waning; (II) we haven’t looked at the other parts of the immune system; and (iii) if immunity as a whole wanes we have a problem.
All of those statements are true. But they have only proven (i). They haven’t investigated the other parts of immunity
Why don't we go back to using Latin as the universal international language? "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres"
“Universal”? Huh?
Latin wasn’t very big in Han China, the Kushan empire, Caledonia, Hibernia, Scandinavia, Magna Germania or most of the planet for that matter.
You forgot Arabia, Byzantium and Russia, although you were wrong to include Hibernia where it was a key language in scholarship from about the turn of the 7th century onwards.
Well, perhaps we can SATISFY my SUGGESTION by DISSEMINATING LATIN to the GLOBE VIA our (PERFIDIOUS ALBION) NATIVE TONGUE.
Tongue is Germanic, shoulda gone with language.
YUR right. I was JUGGLING.
There's a misunderstanding anway, Latin's best claim for universality is not in 200 AD but in 1700-1800 AD. Linnaeus wrote mainly in Latin frinstance and indeed Latinised himself from von Linne
I would bet, without knowing anjything about it, that the Byzantine empire was stuffed with readers/writers of Latin at all stages of its existence.
And don't forget Newton's "Principia". It was/is universal.
Hmm. Wasn't the Byzantine empire primarily Greek-speaking, even in the classical era?
Er - it was the Roman Empire in the classical era...
Sorry; should have been clearer; the eastern part of the classical Roman Empire which later became the Byzantine Empire. But it's primarily Greek that you would have heard as a common language. Hence the koine of the Gospels, AIUI.
It was the Roman Empire right up to 1453. “Byzantine” is a modern historiographic term. Even after the conquest the Orthodox Christian population was administered by the Ottoman government through the “Rum millet”.
Indeed; in mediaeval times Greece or at least the Peloponnese was called Rum, or so I recall from Alfred Duggan's novels.
Yes. IIRC prior to the expulsions in 1922 the rural Greek-speaking people of Ionia (today the west coast of Turkey) called themselves “Rhomaioi”. Interestingly the modern Turkish word for Greece “Yunistan”, comes from “Ionians”. That comes from the Persians/Iranians, and goes back to at least the sixth century BC.
Whilst the extent of waning against severe disease (i.e. that requiring hospitalisation) is less than that against mild disease, even small reductions in protection can result in significant rises in hospitalisations and deaths, particularly in high-risk groups.
The researchers also find that this reduction in neutralising antibodies could impact vaccine efficacy against severe disease. In a worst-case scenario where the decay rate after a booster dose is the same as that observed after the first 2 doses, the study predicts that vaccine efficacy against severe disease (hospitalisation) may drop from 96.5% (95% CrI 96.1%–96.8%) against Delta to 80.1% (76.3%–83.02) against Omicron by 60 days after the primary vaccine course followed by a booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine if antibodies decay at the same rate following the booster as observed following the primary vaccine course. If this rate of decay is half that rate, the drop is estimated to be from 97.6% (95% CrI 97.4%-97.9%) against Delta to 85.9% (95% CrI 83.1%-88.3%) against Omicron. However, this could be further moderated by the increased longevity of T cell-mediated immunity.
The researchers say that whilst these numbers are currently associated with a high degree of uncertainty, they indicate that Omicron-variant specific vaccines and/or further boosters are likely to be needed to restore protection.
Any reduction in effectiveness of the vaccines is going to put a lot of people in hospital - and that is what the data indicates. It's possible T-cell immunity will make a difference but there is no evidence at this stage that is the case - and to do health on the basis of a hunch seems like a very bad idea.
We need to ensure immunity remains high, get the unvaccinated vaccinated ASAP and urgently work out how we maintain immunity. Otherwise the hospitals are going to become overwhelmed over the next few months similarly to Delta.
Action and plans are needed now.
Your quote even mentions T-cells...
I even said that in the post, please read.
It's possible T-cells will make the difference but there is not sufficient evidence to say so. So to claim this is a reason not to ensure immunity remains high otherwise is to ignore the actual evidence that exists.
If and when T-cell evidence comes along, we can discuss it then.
My position is that we need to wait on the real world evidence of hospitalisation etc before we impose restrictions on society. Those restrictions are not cost free. You might be right, @Chris might be right. But I think it is prudent to wait just a bit longer to what is really happening. I get that that seems risky, but in reality we have a bit of a test site running. London. It’s ahead of the curve. If it goes to shit, then we can act.
You're totally missing the point. I am not calling for a lockdown, I am not calling for more restrictions.
I am specifically referring to the risk of these things if immunity continues to wane, which is what all the studies say is the concern. We need to plan for that now, otherwise a lot of people are going to end up in hospital and we really will need a lockdown.
And my point is that the studies you refer to are about nABs, not the whole protection offered by vaccination. We may need more boosters, or omicron may infect all of us and proved long lasting protection via infection. Your assumption is that ‘waning’ is a huge problem, whereas I suspect it isn’t.
And yet that is what the studies actually say is the concern. Your rebuttal isn't based on any actual research
The studies are referring to part of the story not the whole. You are drawing the wrong conclusion - the immune system is a complex multi-factorial process.
I'm reading what the studies say. Just because you don't happen to agree, it doesn't make me wrong.
We don't know, that's exactly the point - and is what I agree with @turbotubbs on
I’m not disagreeing with the studies.
The immune system includes both the innate and adaptive systems (plus a third line I always forget), T cells, memory B cells and the immediate response.
The immediate immune response wanes. It always does. But the memory B cells react rapidly to a new infection with a similar virus triggering massive production of T cells.
You are looking at the immediate levels of antibodies falling and declaring it’s a disaster. It’s not.
IIRC the reduction in antibodies is to be expected - and if it doesn't happen can suggest a problem with the immune system?
Yes and don’t know, but probably yes. Generally if something expected doesn’t happen then something is broken
A sad but entirely predictable result of Brexit - a collapse in European school visits to the UK, with our young people increasingly cast adrift from their continent. A loss of a source of British soft power too.
In this area, as with many others, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic.
From the article:
"Post-Brexit changes to Britain’s immigration rules have triggered an unprecedented collapse in bookings for school trips from the continent, organisers say, with countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands now more popular than the UK.
While the pandemic has depressed European school travel in general, the number of short-stay educational visits planned in 2022 to alternative EU destinations where English is widely spoken is significantly higher than inquiries for UK visits.
Operators say that while Britain’s day two Covid test requirement is a factor, by far the most significant is the UK’s decision not to accept EU group passports or identity cards from 1 October, instead requiring full passports – plus expensive individual visas for non-EU pupils."
How do you think the UK has been portrayed viz a viz Covid in the European press?
I'd be staggered if it was portrayed as negatively in Europe as it is in the US.
People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.
Only in Democratic left liberal publications like the New York Times.
Trumpland is relatively positive about Brexit and largely not bothered about Covid either and firmly anti lockdown and in some cases even antivax
That simply not true. (About covid anyway. The brexit bit may be true, but I'm not sure most Trump voters in West Virginia care much about it.)
Wrong, it absolutely is true, the phrase 'Plague Island' emerged first in the New York Times. The New York Times of course hates Boris and hates post Brexit Britain too.
On Covod it absolutely is true, the vast majority of Trump voting states now have zero restrictions and of course larger than others untaxed too. Plus you will find hardly anyone in those states reads the New York Times which is a publication read in the mainly Democrat voting North East and West Coast US
I spend a lot of time in Red America. You know my business is in a State with a Republican Governor and pretty much everyone I interact with there is a Republican political appointee.
They think Britain is Plague Island because we have Socialised Medicine.
Liberals in America think Britain is Plague Island because they think Boris is a clown.
Conservative Republicans may be anti socialised medicine but they have never called us 'Plague Island' like the New York Times is.
For starters because most of them are not that bothered about Covid anyway.
Even in the UK it was of course Labour who introduced stated controlled and funded healthcare with Churchill's Tories opposed at the time, so it is hardly surprising conservative Republicans in the US do not support a policy introduced by the UK Labour Party
Less than three weeks ago, a Republican political appointee and Trump donor, said to me (and I'm paraphrasing slightly) "You were back in England for Thanksgiving? Why did you go to Plague Island?"
If you watch Fox News, you will get the impression that the US (and particularly Red States) have handled the pandemic brilliantly, because they've had good American vaccines, freedom and private healthcare.
There isn't some special "carve out" for the UK, where they get a pass on the criticism meted out to other countries.
'Paraphrasing' so not exactly then.
Half of Trump voters have not even been vaccinated let alone taken any notice of Covid. They certainly have not been calling us 'Plague Island' unlike left liberals in the New York Times as as far as they are concerned Covid is a conspiracy pushed by big state authoritarians to lockdown and take their businesses and force them to have dodgy vaccines.
And no one brief conversation with a millionaire donor is not the average Trump voter or anywhere near it.
Amused that our Epping correspondent has so much better an idea of what is going on in the States than our California(? - can't remember) correspondent.
California is arguably even more left liberal than we are now, even in 2016 over 60% of Californians voted for Hillary and our correspondent lives in a firmly blue part of it.
Culturally I would even say my part of Epping, which was over 60% Leave, has more in common with Red state USA than the part of the US our correspondent now lives in
Having lived in the US and the UK, in Leave and in Remain areas, and in Red and Blue states, I think the cultural differences between Epping and Roberts County, Texas are quite substantial. I think you - @HYUFD - would find the culture of deepest Remainia (say Kew) to be much closer to Epping than Roberts County is.
Agreed. The cultural differences between, say, Washington DC and London - two left-leaning capital cities that I've lived in - are pretty significant. There's a whole lot more to culture than a simple left-right political leaning. The desire of some UK right-wingers to embrace the US is a bit weird (and it's certainly not reciprocated) - and I say this as someone who lived in the US for a number of years and really like the place.
Culturally however big cities across the western world now tend to have more in common with each other than rural parts of their own nation.
It was not a particular desire to embrace the US, as an English Tory I believe we are closer to Canada, Australia and New Zealand and much of the Commonwealth than the US. What it was however was a response to the 'Plague Island' articles in the New York Times which are undoubtedly an urban left liberal shot at Boris and post Brexit Britain
Americans of all political persuasions have a complicated emotional relationship with Britain and there are competing veins of Anglophilia and Anglophobia across American society. They love watching the Crown. They also love casting a posh British actor as the villain in their movies. I think that Brexit and Boris Johnson have brought to the fore some latent feelings of dislike. But some of the strongest Anglophobia I came across while living in the US came from those on the right, while liberals I met most often tended to be fairly Anglophile.
It depends who is in charge here, left liberals in the US tended to like Blair (despite Iraq). Conservatives in the US tend to be admirers of Thatcher and Churchill.
Some Catholic Irish American Conservatives dislike the British but mainly because they want a united Ireland.
Overall however majorities of both Democrats and Republicans see the UK as an ally. However while 52% of Democrats also see France as an ally, only 34% of Republicans see France as an ally
From that poll, only 40% of Americans aged under 45 see the UK as an ally.
Which is still significantly higher than the only 35% of them who see France as an ally, despite the fact younger voters like here are almost always strongly left liberal and far more Democrat than the US as a whole.
Plus far more of them still see the UK as an ally than a foe
Whilst the extent of waning against severe disease (i.e. that requiring hospitalisation) is less than that against mild disease, even small reductions in protection can result in significant rises in hospitalisations and deaths, particularly in high-risk groups.
The researchers also find that this reduction in neutralising antibodies could impact vaccine efficacy against severe disease. In a worst-case scenario where the decay rate after a booster dose is the same as that observed after the first 2 doses, the study predicts that vaccine efficacy against severe disease (hospitalisation) may drop from 96.5% (95% CrI 96.1%–96.8%) against Delta to 80.1% (76.3%–83.02) against Omicron by 60 days after the primary vaccine course followed by a booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine if antibodies decay at the same rate following the booster as observed following the primary vaccine course. If this rate of decay is half that rate, the drop is estimated to be from 97.6% (95% CrI 97.4%-97.9%) against Delta to 85.9% (95% CrI 83.1%-88.3%) against Omicron. However, this could be further moderated by the increased longevity of T cell-mediated immunity.
The researchers say that whilst these numbers are currently associated with a high degree of uncertainty, they indicate that Omicron-variant specific vaccines and/or further boosters are likely to be needed to restore protection.
Any reduction in effectiveness of the vaccines is going to put a lot of people in hospital - and that is what the data indicates. It's possible T-cell immunity will make a difference but there is no evidence at this stage that is the case - and to do health on the basis of a hunch seems like a very bad idea.
We need to ensure immunity remains high, get the unvaccinated vaccinated ASAP and urgently work out how we maintain immunity. Otherwise the hospitals are going to become overwhelmed over the next few months similarly to Delta.
Action and plans are needed now.
Your quote even mentions T-cells...
I even said that in the post, please read.
It's possible T-cells will make the difference but there is not sufficient evidence to say so. So to claim this is a reason not to ensure immunity remains high otherwise is to ignore the actual evidence that exists.
If and when T-cell evidence comes along, we can discuss it then.
My position is that we need to wait on the real world evidence of hospitalisation etc before we impose restrictions on society. Those restrictions are not cost free. You might be right, @Chris might be right. But I think it is prudent to wait just a bit longer to what is really happening. I get that that seems risky, but in reality we have a bit of a test site running. London. It’s ahead of the curve. If it goes to shit, then we can act.
You're totally missing the point. I am not calling for a lockdown, I am not calling for more restrictions.
I am specifically referring to the risk of these things if immunity continues to wane, which is what all the studies say is the concern. We need to plan for that now, otherwise a lot of people are going to end up in hospital and we really will need a lockdown.
And my point is that the studies you refer to are about nABs, not the whole protection offered by vaccination. We may need more boosters, or omicron may infect all of us and proved long lasting protection via infection. Your assumption is that ‘waning’ is a huge problem, whereas I suspect it isn’t.
And yet that is what the studies actually say is the concern. Your rebuttal isn't based on any actual research
The studies are referring to part of the story not the whole. You are drawing the wrong conclusion - the immune system is a complex multi-factorial process.
I'm reading what the studies say. Just because you don't happen to agree, it doesn't make me wrong.
We don't know, that's exactly the point - and is what I agree with @turbotubbs on
I’m not disagreeing with the studies.
The immune system includes both the innate and adaptive systems (plus a third line I always forget), T cells, memory B cells and the immediate response.
The immediate immune response wanes. It always does. But the memory B cells react rapidly to a new infection with a similar virus triggering massive production of T cells.
You are looking at the immediate levels of antibodies falling and declaring it’s a disaster. It’s not.
The studies themselves say, if immunity wanes we are in trouble. I never used the word disaster.
You disagree with the studies, that's up to you. But it doesn't make me wrong.
Arguing with you is totally pointless.
If the ravens leave the Tower of London then the monarchy will fall.
The studies say that (I) NAbs are waning; (II) we haven’t looked at the other parts of the immune system; and (iii) if immunity as a whole wanes we have a problem.
All of those statements are true. But they have only proven (i). They haven’t investigated the other parts of immunity
I have seen few studies on the other parts of the immune response to COVID - but lots on the antibodies. Why is that? Harder to do?
The Tories I hope are coming to the end of their current time in Government. In opposition they can remove UKIP from themselves and go back to being a moderate, centre-ground party the country can be proud of once again
Whilst the extent of waning against severe disease (i.e. that requiring hospitalisation) is less than that against mild disease, even small reductions in protection can result in significant rises in hospitalisations and deaths, particularly in high-risk groups.
The researchers also find that this reduction in neutralising antibodies could impact vaccine efficacy against severe disease. In a worst-case scenario where the decay rate after a booster dose is the same as that observed after the first 2 doses, the study predicts that vaccine efficacy against severe disease (hospitalisation) may drop from 96.5% (95% CrI 96.1%–96.8%) against Delta to 80.1% (76.3%–83.02) against Omicron by 60 days after the primary vaccine course followed by a booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine if antibodies decay at the same rate following the booster as observed following the primary vaccine course. If this rate of decay is half that rate, the drop is estimated to be from 97.6% (95% CrI 97.4%-97.9%) against Delta to 85.9% (95% CrI 83.1%-88.3%) against Omicron. However, this could be further moderated by the increased longevity of T cell-mediated immunity.
The researchers say that whilst these numbers are currently associated with a high degree of uncertainty, they indicate that Omicron-variant specific vaccines and/or further boosters are likely to be needed to restore protection.
Any reduction in effectiveness of the vaccines is going to put a lot of people in hospital - and that is what the data indicates. It's possible T-cell immunity will make a difference but there is no evidence at this stage that is the case - and to do health on the basis of a hunch seems like a very bad idea.
We need to ensure immunity remains high, get the unvaccinated vaccinated ASAP and urgently work out how we maintain immunity. Otherwise the hospitals are going to become overwhelmed over the next few months similarly to Delta.
Action and plans are needed now.
Your quote even mentions T-cells...
I even said that in the post, please read.
It's possible T-cells will make the difference but there is not sufficient evidence to say so. So to claim this is a reason not to ensure immunity remains high otherwise is to ignore the actual evidence that exists.
If and when T-cell evidence comes along, we can discuss it then.
My position is that we need to wait on the real world evidence of hospitalisation etc before we impose restrictions on society. Those restrictions are not cost free. You might be right, @Chris might be right. But I think it is prudent to wait just a bit longer to what is really happening. I get that that seems risky, but in reality we have a bit of a test site running. London. It’s ahead of the curve. If it goes to shit, then we can act.
You're totally missing the point. I am not calling for a lockdown, I am not calling for more restrictions.
I am specifically referring to the risk of these things if immunity continues to wane, which is what all the studies say is the concern. We need to plan for that now, otherwise a lot of people are going to end up in hospital and we really will need a lockdown.
And my point is that the studies you refer to are about nABs, not the whole protection offered by vaccination. We may need more boosters, or omicron may infect all of us and proved long lasting protection via infection. Your assumption is that ‘waning’ is a huge problem, whereas I suspect it isn’t.
And yet that is what the studies actually say is the concern. Your rebuttal isn't based on any actual research
The studies are referring to part of the story not the whole. You are drawing the wrong conclusion - the immune system is a complex multi-factorial process.
I'm reading what the studies say. Just because you don't happen to agree, it doesn't make me wrong.
We don't know, that's exactly the point - and is what I agree with @turbotubbs on
I’m not disagreeing with the studies.
The immune system includes both the innate and adaptive systems (plus a third line I always forget), T cells, memory B cells and the immediate response.
The immediate immune response wanes. It always does. But the memory B cells react rapidly to a new infection with a similar virus triggering massive production of T cells.
You are looking at the immediate levels of antibodies falling and declaring it’s a disaster. It’s not.
The studies themselves say, if immunity wanes we are in trouble. I never used the word disaster.
You disagree with the studies, that's up to you. But it doesn't make me wrong.
Arguing with you is totally pointless.
If the ravens leave the Tower of London then the monarchy will fall.
The studies say that (I) NAbs are waning; (II) we haven’t looked at the other parts of the immune system; and (iii) if immunity as a whole wanes we have a problem.
All of those statements are true. But they have only proven (i). They haven’t investigated the other parts of immunity
I have seen few studies on the other parts of the immune response to COVID - but lots on the antibodies. Why is that? Harder to do?
You need to do a challenge test on humans and most countries decided it was unethical to infect someone with a potentially fatal disease.
I believe there was 1 challenge test early on in the UK (with healthy volunteers)
A sad but entirely predictable result of Brexit - a collapse in European school visits to the UK, with our young people increasingly cast adrift from their continent. A loss of a source of British soft power too.
In this area, as with many others, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic.
From the article:
"Post-Brexit changes to Britain’s immigration rules have triggered an unprecedented collapse in bookings for school trips from the continent, organisers say, with countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands now more popular than the UK.
While the pandemic has depressed European school travel in general, the number of short-stay educational visits planned in 2022 to alternative EU destinations where English is widely spoken is significantly higher than inquiries for UK visits.
Operators say that while Britain’s day two Covid test requirement is a factor, by far the most significant is the UK’s decision not to accept EU group passports or identity cards from 1 October, instead requiring full passports – plus expensive individual visas for non-EU pupils."
How do you think the UK has been portrayed viz a viz Covid in the European press?
I'd be staggered if it was portrayed as negatively in Europe as it is in the US.
People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.
Only in Democratic left liberal publications like the New York Times.
Trumpland is relatively positive about Brexit and largely not bothered about Covid either and firmly anti lockdown and in some cases even antivax
That simply not true. (About covid anyway. The brexit bit may be true, but I'm not sure most Trump voters in West Virginia care much about it.)
Wrong, it absolutely is true, the phrase 'Plague Island' emerged first in the New York Times. The New York Times of course hates Boris and hates post Brexit Britain too.
On Covod it absolutely is true, the vast majority of Trump voting states now have zero restrictions and of course larger than others untaxed too. Plus you will find hardly anyone in those states reads the New York Times which is a publication read in the mainly Democrat voting North East and West Coast US
I spend a lot of time in Red America. You know my business is in a State with a Republican Governor and pretty much everyone I interact with there is a Republican political appointee.
They think Britain is Plague Island because we have Socialised Medicine.
Liberals in America think Britain is Plague Island because they think Boris is a clown.
Conservative Republicans may be anti socialised medicine but they have never called us 'Plague Island' like the New York Times is.
For starters because most of them are not that bothered about Covid anyway.
Even in the UK it was of course Labour who introduced stated controlled and funded healthcare with Churchill's Tories opposed at the time, so it is hardly surprising conservative Republicans in the US do not support a policy introduced by the UK Labour Party
Less than three weeks ago, a Republican political appointee and Trump donor, said to me (and I'm paraphrasing slightly) "You were back in England for Thanksgiving? Why did you go to Plague Island?"
If you watch Fox News, you will get the impression that the US (and particularly Red States) have handled the pandemic brilliantly, because they've had good American vaccines, freedom and private healthcare.
There isn't some special "carve out" for the UK, where they get a pass on the criticism meted out to other countries.
'Paraphrasing' so not exactly then.
Half of Trump voters have not even been vaccinated let alone taken any notice of Covid. They certainly have not been calling us 'Plague Island' unlike left liberals in the New York Times as as far as they are concerned Covid is a conspiracy pushed by big state authoritarians to lockdown and take their businesses and force them to have dodgy vaccines.
And no one brief conversation with a millionaire donor is not the average Trump voter or anywhere near it.
Amused that our Epping correspondent has so much better an idea of what is going on in the States than our California(? - can't remember) correspondent.
California is arguably even more left liberal than we are now, even in 2016 over 60% of Californians voted for Hillary and our correspondent lives in a firmly blue part of it.
Culturally I would even say my part of Epping, which was over 60% Leave, has more in common with Red state USA than the part of the US our correspondent now lives in
Having lived in the US and the UK, in Leave and in Remain areas, and in Red and Blue states, I think the cultural differences between Epping and Roberts County, Texas are quite substantial. I think you - @HYUFD - would find the culture of deepest Remainia (say Kew) to be much closer to Epping than Roberts County is.
Agreed. The cultural differences between, say, Washington DC and London - two left-leaning capital cities that I've lived in - are pretty significant. There's a whole lot more to culture than a simple left-right political leaning. The desire of some UK right-wingers to embrace the US is a bit weird (and it's certainly not reciprocated) - and I say this as someone who lived in the US for a number of years and really like the place.
Culturally however big cities across the western world now tend to have more in common with each other than rural parts of their own nation.
It was not a particular desire to embrace the US, as an English Tory I believe we are closer to Canada, Australia and New Zealand and much of the Commonwealth than the US. What it was however was a response to the 'Plague Island' articles in the New York Times which are undoubtedly an urban left liberal shot at Boris and post Brexit Britain
Americans of all political persuasions have a complicated emotional relationship with Britain and there are competing veins of Anglophilia and Anglophobia across American society. They love watching the Crown. They also love casting a posh British actor as the villain in their movies. I think that Brexit and Boris Johnson have brought to the fore some latent feelings of dislike. But some of the strongest Anglophobia I came across while living in the US came from those on the right, while liberals I met most often tended to be fairly Anglophile.
It depends who is in charge here, left liberals in the US tended to like Blair (despite Iraq). Conservatives in the US tend to be admirers of Thatcher and Churchill.
Some Catholic Irish American Conservatives dislike the British but mainly because they want a united Ireland.
Overall however majorities of both Democrats and Republicans see the UK as an ally. However while 52% of Democrats also see France as an ally, only 34% of Republicans see France as an ally
From that poll, only 40% of Americans aged under 45 see the UK as an ally.
Which is still significantly higher than the only 35% of them who see France as an ally, despite the fact younger voters like here are almost always strongly left liberal and far more Democrat than the US as a whole.
Plus far more of them still see the UK as an ally than a foe
So we should be safe from a US invasion then. Phew!
A sad but entirely predictable result of Brexit - a collapse in European school visits to the UK, with our young people increasingly cast adrift from their continent. A loss of a source of British soft power too.
In this area, as with many others, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from the impact of the pandemic.
From the article:
"Post-Brexit changes to Britain’s immigration rules have triggered an unprecedented collapse in bookings for school trips from the continent, organisers say, with countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands now more popular than the UK.
While the pandemic has depressed European school travel in general, the number of short-stay educational visits planned in 2022 to alternative EU destinations where English is widely spoken is significantly higher than inquiries for UK visits.
Operators say that while Britain’s day two Covid test requirement is a factor, by far the most significant is the UK’s decision not to accept EU group passports or identity cards from 1 October, instead requiring full passports – plus expensive individual visas for non-EU pupils."
How do you think the UK has been portrayed viz a viz Covid in the European press?
I'd be staggered if it was portrayed as negatively in Europe as it is in the US.
People use the phrase "plague island" about the UK entirely unironically.
Only in Democratic left liberal publications like the New York Times.
Trumpland is relatively positive about Brexit and largely not bothered about Covid either and firmly anti lockdown and in some cases even antivax
That simply not true. (About covid anyway. The brexit bit may be true, but I'm not sure most Trump voters in West Virginia care much about it.)
Wrong, it absolutely is true, the phrase 'Plague Island' emerged first in the New York Times. The New York Times of course hates Boris and hates post Brexit Britain too.
On Covod it absolutely is true, the vast majority of Trump voting states now have zero restrictions and of course larger than others untaxed too. Plus you will find hardly anyone in those states reads the New York Times which is a publication read in the mainly Democrat voting North East and West Coast US
I spend a lot of time in Red America. You know my business is in a State with a Republican Governor and pretty much everyone I interact with there is a Republican political appointee.
They think Britain is Plague Island because we have Socialised Medicine.
Liberals in America think Britain is Plague Island because they think Boris is a clown.
Conservative Republicans may be anti socialised medicine but they have never called us 'Plague Island' like the New York Times is.
For starters because most of them are not that bothered about Covid anyway.
Even in the UK it was of course Labour who introduced stated controlled and funded healthcare with Churchill's Tories opposed at the time, so it is hardly surprising conservative Republicans in the US do not support a policy introduced by the UK Labour Party
Less than three weeks ago, a Republican political appointee and Trump donor, said to me (and I'm paraphrasing slightly) "You were back in England for Thanksgiving? Why did you go to Plague Island?"
If you watch Fox News, you will get the impression that the US (and particularly Red States) have handled the pandemic brilliantly, because they've had good American vaccines, freedom and private healthcare.
There isn't some special "carve out" for the UK, where they get a pass on the criticism meted out to other countries.
'Paraphrasing' so not exactly then.
Half of Trump voters have not even been vaccinated let alone taken any notice of Covid. They certainly have not been calling us 'Plague Island' unlike left liberals in the New York Times as as far as they are concerned Covid is a conspiracy pushed by big state authoritarians to lockdown and take their businesses and force them to have dodgy vaccines.
And no one brief conversation with a millionaire donor is not the average Trump voter or anywhere near it.
Amused that our Epping correspondent has so much better an idea of what is going on in the States than our California(? - can't remember) correspondent.
California is arguably even more left liberal than we are now, even in 2016 over 60% of Californians voted for Hillary and our correspondent lives in a firmly blue part of it.
Culturally I would even say my part of Epping, which was over 60% Leave, has more in common with Red state USA than the part of the US our correspondent now lives in
Having lived in the US and the UK, in Leave and in Remain areas, and in Red and Blue states, I think the cultural differences between Epping and Roberts County, Texas are quite substantial. I think you - @HYUFD - would find the culture of deepest Remainia (say Kew) to be much closer to Epping than Roberts County is.
Agreed. The cultural differences between, say, Washington DC and London - two left-leaning capital cities that I've lived in - are pretty significant. There's a whole lot more to culture than a simple left-right political leaning. The desire of some UK right-wingers to embrace the US is a bit weird (and it's certainly not reciprocated) - and I say this as someone who lived in the US for a number of years and really like the place.
Culturally however big cities across the western world now tend to have more in common with each other than rural parts of their own nation.
It was not a particular desire to embrace the US, as an English Tory I believe we are closer to Canada, Australia and New Zealand and much of the Commonwealth than the US. What it was however was a response to the 'Plague Island' articles in the New York Times which are undoubtedly an urban left liberal shot at Boris and post Brexit Britain
Americans of all political persuasions have a complicated emotional relationship with Britain and there are competing veins of Anglophilia and Anglophobia across American society. They love watching the Crown. They also love casting a posh British actor as the villain in their movies. I think that Brexit and Boris Johnson have brought to the fore some latent feelings of dislike. But some of the strongest Anglophobia I came across while living in the US came from those on the right, while liberals I met most often tended to be fairly Anglophile.
It depends who is in charge here, left liberals in the US tended to like Blair (despite Iraq). Conservatives in the US tend to be admirers of Thatcher and Churchill.
Some Catholic Irish American Conservatives dislike the British but mainly because they want a united Ireland.
Overall however majorities of both Democrats and Republicans see the UK as an ally. However while 52% of Democrats also see France as an ally, only 34% of Republicans see France as an ally
From that poll, only 40% of Americans aged under 45 see the UK as an ally.
Which is still significantly higher than the only 35% of them who see France as an ally, despite the fact younger voters like here are almost always strongly left liberal and far more Democrat than the US as a whole.
Plus far more of them still see the UK as an ally than a foe
So we should be safe from a US invasion then. Phew!
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
What odds will you offer that we don’t?
Don't you start. I am waiting for @Chris to take me up on my bet on his estimation that there will be 800k cases/day.
Govt mood on Covid increasingly leaning on guidance:
“The latest research on Omicron supports Boris’ decision to be cautious. I don’t see why he would recall everyone to Westminster when things are starting to look as if we can make our way through it.”
What hilarious spin lol.
Anyway, now complacency is going to set in again and we're going to be in real trouble soon. I am so glad the Government learnt their lessons, not
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
What odds will you offer that we don’t?
Don't you start. I am waiting for @Chris to take me up on my bet on his estimation that there will be 800k cases/day.
At 15k hospitalisations a day and 1% hospitalisation rate, he's actually predicting more like 1.5m cases per day (assuming a bunch of things that aren't true, but give or take). That's not even the peak - that's the average for the three week period of the wave.
Edit: if 1.5m cases per day sounds ludicrous, that is a good indicator that he is not correct.
The Tories I hope are coming to the end of their current time in Government. In opposition they can remove UKIP from themselves and go back to being a moderate, centre-ground party the country can be proud of once again
If the history of Labour and the Tories in the last few decades tells us anything it is that both go further to the left or right in opposition after losing power. They do not become more moderate
It's a good point. So do we need laws to enforce the same behaviour.
We have reached a situation where *guidance* is probably more appropriate, for all but the most high risk of situations.
So, I would have a vaccine mandate for hospital staff, and have visitors wearing masks. And I would probably require masks on public transport.
And I would suggest that people avoid high risk events, especially if they are going to be mixing with elderly relatives.
Presumably you disagree with the SAGE recommendation for immediate restrictions, then.
I just wonder why people think there's no cause for alarm. With our state of knowledge, probably about half the population is susceptible to a disease which will result in a hospitalisation rate of probably 1% per infection, with a transmission rate that dictates a time-course of three weeks or so.
I just wish people could explain why they're not concerned. Whether they think that a lot fewer than half the population is susceptible, or a lot fewer than 1% will be hospitalised, or the time-course is going to be a lot longer than three weeks.
Unless one of those figures is badly wrong, we're going to have 15,000+ hospitalisations for a period of three weeks, with the peak far bigger.
I wish I could understand which bit of that people disagree with.
What odds will you offer that we don’t?
Don't you start. I am waiting for @Chris to take me up on my bet on his estimation that there will be 800k cases/day.
At 15k hospitalisations a day and 1% hospitalisation rate, he's actually predicting more like 1.5m cases per day (assuming a bunch of things that aren't true, but give or take). That's not even the peak - that's the average for the three week period of the wave.
Edit: if 1.5m cases per day sounds ludicrous, that is a good indicator that he is not correct.
In all honesty these exchanges are important for @Chris. They allow him to vent and shout and evidently fulfill a vital function.
Whilst the extent of waning against severe disease (i.e. that requiring hospitalisation) is less than that against mild disease, even small reductions in protection can result in significant rises in hospitalisations and deaths, particularly in high-risk groups.
The researchers also find that this reduction in neutralising antibodies could impact vaccine efficacy against severe disease. In a worst-case scenario where the decay rate after a booster dose is the same as that observed after the first 2 doses, the study predicts that vaccine efficacy against severe disease (hospitalisation) may drop from 96.5% (95% CrI 96.1%–96.8%) against Delta to 80.1% (76.3%–83.02) against Omicron by 60 days after the primary vaccine course followed by a booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine if antibodies decay at the same rate following the booster as observed following the primary vaccine course. If this rate of decay is half that rate, the drop is estimated to be from 97.6% (95% CrI 97.4%-97.9%) against Delta to 85.9% (95% CrI 83.1%-88.3%) against Omicron. However, this could be further moderated by the increased longevity of T cell-mediated immunity.
The researchers say that whilst these numbers are currently associated with a high degree of uncertainty, they indicate that Omicron-variant specific vaccines and/or further boosters are likely to be needed to restore protection.
Any reduction in effectiveness of the vaccines is going to put a lot of people in hospital - and that is what the data indicates. It's possible T-cell immunity will make a difference but there is no evidence at this stage that is the case - and to do health on the basis of a hunch seems like a very bad idea.
We need to ensure immunity remains high, get the unvaccinated vaccinated ASAP and urgently work out how we maintain immunity. Otherwise the hospitals are going to become overwhelmed over the next few months similarly to Delta.
Action and plans are needed now.
Your quote even mentions T-cells...
I even said that in the post, please read.
It's possible T-cells will make the difference but there is not sufficient evidence to say so. So to claim this is a reason not to ensure immunity remains high otherwise is to ignore the actual evidence that exists.
If and when T-cell evidence comes along, we can discuss it then.
My position is that we need to wait on the real world evidence of hospitalisation etc before we impose restrictions on society. Those restrictions are not cost free. You might be right, @Chris might be right. But I think it is prudent to wait just a bit longer to what is really happening. I get that that seems risky, but in reality we have a bit of a test site running. London. It’s ahead of the curve. If it goes to shit, then we can act.
You're totally missing the point. I am not calling for a lockdown, I am not calling for more restrictions.
I am specifically referring to the risk of these things if immunity continues to wane, which is what all the studies say is the concern. We need to plan for that now, otherwise a lot of people are going to end up in hospital and we really will need a lockdown.
And my point is that the studies you refer to are about nABs, not the whole protection offered by vaccination. We may need more boosters, or omicron may infect all of us and proved long lasting protection via infection. Your assumption is that ‘waning’ is a huge problem, whereas I suspect it isn’t.
And yet that is what the studies actually say is the concern. Your rebuttal isn't based on any actual research
The studies are referring to part of the story not the whole. You are drawing the wrong conclusion - the immune system is a complex multi-factorial process.
I'm reading what the studies say. Just because you don't happen to agree, it doesn't make me wrong.
We don't know, that's exactly the point - and is what I agree with @turbotubbs on
I’m not disagreeing with the studies.
The immune system includes both the innate and adaptive systems (plus a third line I always forget), T cells, memory B cells and the immediate response.
The immediate immune response wanes. It always does. But the memory B cells react rapidly to a new infection with a similar virus triggering massive production of T cells.
You are looking at the immediate levels of antibodies falling and declaring it’s a disaster. It’s not.
The studies themselves say, if immunity wanes we are in trouble. I never used the word disaster.
You disagree with the studies, that's up to you. But it doesn't make me wrong.
Arguing with you is totally pointless.
If the ravens leave the Tower of London then the monarchy will fall.
The studies say that (I) NAbs are waning; (II) we haven’t looked at the other parts of the immune system; and (iii) if immunity as a whole wanes we have a problem.
All of those statements are true. But they have only proven (i). They haven’t investigated the other parts of immunity
I have seen few studies on the other parts of the immune response to COVID - but lots on the antibodies. Why is that? Harder to do?
The Tories I hope are coming to the end of their current time in Government. In opposition they can remove UKIP from themselves and go back to being a moderate, centre-ground party the country can be proud of once again
If the history of Labour and the Tories in the last few decades tells us anything it is that both go further to the left or right in opposition after losing power. They do not become more moderate
Sunak is pro austerity and pro cuts. Is that what the Red Wall voted for?
No they voted for Boris that isn't.
If the Tories change tack now, they are in for a battering.
More it is that Johnson just promises everybody he meets what they want. He is just a simple bullshitting conman. He will promises the opposite the next day to someone else.
Definitely a liar but the anti austerity levelling up promise was a key factor in 2019. 3rd most important behind Brexit and anti Corbyn
Yeah, I agree that pulling the wool over the eyes of Northerners was very much the intention.
I never claimed immunity is an on/off switch but there is concern over time that immunity wanes and we will be in a lot of trouble.
We see this in the studies that show two doses gives reduced protection.
Against infection yes. Better against serious disease. The concern is mostly journalists I think, and people on Twitter. Most immunologists are happy with how the vaccines are going.
Happy with now but we likely need more boosters and the studies themselves note reduced immunity as a big concern.
They definitely have not concluded there is nothing to worry about
Again, which immunity? It’s very complicated, hence journalists get hung up on neutralisation studies, not the full picture.
Nothing to do with journalists, I'm reading the actual studies.
It seems like you're interpreting it via journalists as well, just from the other side.
I do not think we are out of the woods - of course I hope I am wrong!
I teach medicinal chemistry and I’m very much immersed in the scientific literature. I read the studies, I’m suggesting that the worry about waning immunity is primarily a media notion based on the natural decline of nABs.
The studies themselves note waning immunity is a concern. I am just repeating what they say.
The studies do not - as the media have said - suggest everything is okay.
Why mark this off topic? And this is exactly my point, anyone that dissents from "everything is fine" is shouted down
Comments
Must be her fault, or perhaps Phil Hammond.
The studies say that (I) NAbs are waning; (II) we haven’t looked at the other parts of the immune system; and (iii) if immunity as a whole wanes we have a problem.
All of those statements are true. But they have only proven (i). They haven’t investigated the other parts of immunity
Plus far more of them still see the UK as an ally than a foe
I believe there was 1 challenge test early on in the UK (with healthy volunteers)
Govt mood on Covid increasingly leaning on guidance:
“The latest research on Omicron supports Boris’ decision to be cautious. I don’t see why he would recall everyone to Westminster when things are starting to look as if we can make our way through it.”
What hilarious spin lol.
Anyway, now complacency is going to set in again and we're going to be in real trouble soon. I am so glad the Government learnt their lessons, not
Edit: if 1.5m cases per day sounds ludicrous, that is a good indicator that he is not correct.
See: Cameron and Blair