Who the bloody hell is Adam Brooks? I mean, I welcome it too, but that isn't headline news. Someone I had heard of saying it was the most moronic decision in the whole history of politics might be.
He has 221 000 twitter followers and is one of the leading figures opposing restrictions and a pub owner.
I expect the Tories to get something of a Boris bounce after the PM ruled out further restrictions today, especially in England and any voters who have gone RefUK or DK will start to move back into the Tory column
I expect tomorrow's mail, express, telegraph and sun will be writing very positive columns about the decision tomorrow
He then has to hope his gamble pays off.
If the NHS falls over in three weeks time they will be kicking him again.
I have just said to my dear lady if this decision is correct then it will have huge implications for the devolved administration
If it is wrong then Boris is toast
It depends if safety first lockdown is remembered as long and bitterly as a NHS crash due late action.
I think Boris has called it right. I think vaccination works.
I also think Boris toast snyway, the country thinks he is a liar and will never listen to him again. Tories need to choose new leader asap. Boris leading them over cliff, his policy’s are dangerous crap.
So why con home got Truss three opinion points up on Rishi 😦
Boris will have reunited the right behind him after ruling out further restrictions, that will get the Tory core vote back and get a few libertarians from Labour too.
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
lol, given your previous use of that button that's a bit rich!
Who the bloody hell is Adam Brooks? I mean, I welcome it too, but that isn't headline news. Someone I had heard of saying it was the most moronic decision in the whole history of politics might be.
He has 221 000 twitter followers and is one of the leading figures opposing restrictions and a pub owner.
I expect the Tories to get something of a Boris bounce after the PM ruled out further restrictions today, especially in England and any voters who have gone RefUK or DK will start to move back into the Tory column
I expect tomorrow's mail, express, telegraph and sun will be writing very positive columns about the decision tomorrow
He then has to hope his gamble pays off.
If the NHS falls over in three weeks time they will be kicking him again.
I have just said to my dear lady if this decision is correct then it will have huge implications for the devolved administration
If it is wrong then Boris is toast
It depends if safety first lockdown is remembered as long and bitterly as a NHS crash due late action.
I think Boris has called it right. I think vaccination works.
I also think Boris toast snyway, the country thinks he is a liar and will never listen to him again. Tories need to choose new leader asap. Boris leading them over cliff, his policy’s are dangerous crap.
So why con home got Truss three opinion points up on Rishi 😦
I largely agree but Conhome is not the arbiter on who takes over
Thank goodness! Them putting truss ahead of Rishi for PM is s c a r y 🙀
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
lol, given your previous use of that button that's a bit rich!
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
Who the bloody hell is Adam Brooks? I mean, I welcome it too, but that isn't headline news. Someone I had heard of saying it was the most moronic decision in the whole history of politics might be.
He has 221 000 twitter followers and is one of the leading figures opposing restrictions and a pub owner.
I expect the Tories to get something of a Boris bounce after the PM ruled out further restrictions today, especially in England and any voters who have gone RefUK or DK will start to move back into the Tory column
I expect tomorrow's mail, express, telegraph and sun will be writing very positive columns about the decision tomorrow
He then has to hope his gamble pays off.
If the NHS falls over in three weeks time they will be kicking him again.
I have just said to my dear lady if this decision is correct then it will have huge implications for the devolved administration
If it is wrong then Boris is toast
It depends if safety first lockdown is remembered as long and bitterly as a NHS crash due late action.
I think Boris has called it right. I think vaccination works.
I also think Boris toast snyway, the country thinks he is a liar and will never listen to him again. Tories need to choose new leader asap. Boris leading them over cliff, his policy’s are dangerous crap.
So why con home got Truss three opinion points up on Rishi 😦
Boris will have reunited the right behind him after ruling out further restrictions, that will get the Tory core vote back and get a few libertarians from Labour too.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
Nope, I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm just saying you are interpreting their worst case scenario, caveats and all, as what is going to happen.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
Cheese chappie unhappy. He was 'invited to an online meeting with Victoria Prentis, a minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She suggested that emerging markets could compensate for the Brexit-related hole in the Cheshire Cheese Company’s finances.
Spurrell said he had pursued new business in Norway and Canada but post-Brexit trade deals sealed by the government had put barriers in place.
“We no longer have any ability to deal with the EU as our three distributors in Germany, France and Italy have said we have become too expensive because of the new checks and paperwork.
“And now we’ve also lost Norway since the trade deal, as duty for wholesale is 273%. Then we tried Canada but what the government didn’t tell us is that duty of 244% is applied on any consignment over $20 [£15].”
That meant Canadian customers who ordered a gift pack worth £50, including transport fees, were asked to pay £178 extra in duty when the courier arrived at their door, Spurrell said. “As you can imagine, customers were saying: ‘You can take that back, we don’t want it anymore’.”'
But surely our excellent Conservative Government knew ages ago that that was what would happen. They aren't stupid, are they? This must have been what they wanted and planned for, though I'm not sure exactly why they should.
Perhaps a Government spokesman could enlighten us.... Is Mr HYFUD around anywhere?
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
As someone pro-indy (though, increasingly, not particularly pro-SNP any more) it's really irritating to be rooting for the "other side" in terms of how I think we should be dealing with covid, but at this point I believe HMG are doing the right thing and the SG doing the wrong thing.
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
Let's say your point about waning immunity is critically important - I honestly have no idea whether it is or not but let's take it as read for the purposes of discussion. What can be done about it? Yes, get on with planning to give everyone their 4th jab. Then what? By the time you're at the end of the 4th jabs, the initial 4th-jab cohorts will probably be needing their 5th jabs if the immunity is waning on the timescales of the data you are citing.
What then? I'm not convinced endless jabs in perpetuity are going to be any more popular than restrictions. Are we just hoping that something else comes along or that spring and summers rescues us for a little while?
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Brotain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
Nope, I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm just saying you are interpreting their worst case scenario, caveats and all, as what is going to happen.
Well what do you think will happen? You're calling me out for using evidence that is there and yet you're happy to do the thing you accuse me of, it seems
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
I don’t know why I bother, but waning immunity against infection does not automatically lead to waning immunity against serious disease. After infection or vaccination your nABs will naturally decline. It makes no sense to keep the body on high alert for every virus or other pathogen that you encounter. But the body remembers the pathogen and if needed can ramp up production of antibodies. This is the reason why I am not concerned about studies that show nABs declining over a few months. That’s what they do. The protection against serious disease will last much longer.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
Cheese chappie unhappy. He was 'invited to an online meeting with Victoria Prentis, a minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She suggested that emerging markets could compensate for the Brexit-related hole in the Cheshire Cheese Company’s finances.
Spurrell said he had pursued new business in Norway and Canada but post-Brexit trade deals sealed by the government had put barriers in place.
“We no longer have any ability to deal with the EU as our three distributors in Germany, France and Italy have said we have become too expensive because of the new checks and paperwork.
“And now we’ve also lost Norway since the trade deal, as duty for wholesale is 273%. Then we tried Canada but what the government didn’t tell us is that duty of 244% is applied on any consignment over $20 [£15].”
That meant Canadian customers who ordered a gift pack worth £50, including transport fees, were asked to pay £178 extra in duty when the courier arrived at their door, Spurrell said. “As you can imagine, customers were saying: ‘You can take that back, we don’t want it anymore’.”'
But surely our excellent Conservative Government knew ages ago that that was what would happen. They aren't stupid, are they? This must have been what they wanted and planned for, though I'm not sure exactly why they should.
Perhaps a Government spokesman could enlighten us.... Is Mr HYFUD around anywhere?
I must say I can't understand this. Especially with Ms Truss expatiating on the opportunities for cheese export.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
What the studies do actually say is that the new variant is milder and that the loss of immunity is slow and over a period of many, many months.
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
I don’t know why I bother, but waning immunity against infection does not automatically lead to waning immunity against serious disease. After infection or vaccination your nABs will naturally decline. It makes no sense to keep the body on high alert for every virus or other pathogen that you encounter. But the body remembers the pathogen and if needed can ramp up production of antibodies. This is the reason why I am not concerned about studies that show nABs declining over a few months. That’s what they do. The protection against serious disease will last much longer.
You keep saying this and yet the studies I posted still make direct reference to waning immunity being a concern. I am just saying what the studies say
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
What the studies do actually say is that the new variant is milder and that the loss of immunity is slow and over a period of many, many months.
All the rest is speculation at this stage.
Slightly milder than delta - but as dangerous for the population as the original strain. And as immunity begins to wane, which it will now, we may be in real trouble.
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong. But I am not ashamed to say what the studies actually say
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
Nope, I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm just saying you are interpreting their worst case scenario, caveats and all, as what is going to happen.
Well what do you think will happen? You're calling me out for using evidence that is there and yet you're happy to do the thing you accuse me of, it seems
I don't know what will happen. Previous experience from Delta suggests waning antibody levels doesn't have much impact in terms of the risk of hospitalisation or death. Now, omicron could be different, but we already know that it attacks the body in a different way, reducing its severity.
And I dispute the statement "for using evidence that is there". it's not evidence, it's their (self-described) worst-case scenario.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
I’m not cherry picking, I’m quoting well established science about the immune system.
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
I don’t know why I bother, but waning immunity against infection does not automatically lead to waning immunity against serious disease. After infection or vaccination your nABs will naturally decline. It makes no sense to keep the body on high alert for every virus or other pathogen that you encounter. But the body remembers the pathogen and if needed can ramp up production of antibodies. This is the reason why I am not concerned about studies that show nABs declining over a few months. That’s what they do. The protection against serious disease will last much longer.
You keep saying this and yet the studies I posted still make direct reference to waning immunity being a concern. I am just saying what the studies say
Over what timescale?
You keep acting like immunity is going to wane over days or weeks instead of months.
If it's over six months then you prepare to do another booster in six months time.
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
I don’t know why I bother, but waning immunity against infection does not automatically lead to waning immunity against serious disease. After infection or vaccination your nABs will naturally decline. It makes no sense to keep the body on high alert for every virus or other pathogen that you encounter. But the body remembers the pathogen and if needed can ramp up production of antibodies. This is the reason why I am not concerned about studies that show nABs declining over a few months. That’s what they do…
I’d be more alarmed if they didn’t show such a thing. Now that would be seriously strange.
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
(Most) people are not saying definitively that “everything is fine”. They are questioning demands for hugely damaging and expensive interventions on the back of modelling that (containing considerable levels of uncertainty and unknowns) posits that thing might not be.
And to some extent arguing for alternative solutions to potential issues.
As for the concerns on waning immunity - it seems to me that a substantial part of the pressure for new restrictions are currently based not so much on direct impacts on serious illness (where the broad consensus seems to be that protection from vaccines and/or prior infection will hold up), but knock on impacts due to current requirements on isolation and quarantine in hospitals and wider society.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
But what's the point of something so inefficient when the UK has already spaffed lots of money on new jets with the UK on them, specifically for VIPs?
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
What the studies do actually say is that the new variant is milder and that the loss of immunity is slow and over a period of many, many months.
All the rest is speculation at this stage.
Slightly milder than delta - but as dangerous for the population as the original strain. And as immunity begins to wane, which it will now, we may be in real trouble.
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong. But I am not ashamed to say what the studies actually say
Yes, if Omicron had a time machine and went back to late-2019 we would have been in a much worse position. But virtually everyone in the country now has some evidence of immunity to Covid, whether from vaccination or prior infection. The key stat is whether or not Omicron is more or less severe than the variant it is replacing. Thankfully for us it is less.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Has it been built - I must have missed its launch
And as most of you know my son is RNLI crew, and at 4.37am this morning Beaumaris (not my sons boathouse) had a shout when an empty car was found on Britannia Bridge in the Menai Straights but after 5 hours the search was stood down
There has to be a time when we take a moment in all our family gatherings to be mindful of so many who are suffering serious mental health issues, and for those volunteers who go out in attempts to save lives
The whole business about whether the U.K. Govt should offer assistance to businesses impacted by non aligned Covid restrictions in the devolved nations is a tricky one. The obvious answer is “no they’ve made their beds”. But step away from the politics of it and isn’t it the case that the consequences of business failure in Scotland/Wales fall on the U.K. taxpayer? So there may be a case for offering assistance regardless.
The politics of it are a completely different matter.
I surprised that the Treasury hadn't set up an intra-UK emergency lending system for this.
The 1998 Scotland act allows the SG to borrow from HMG, but I'm not sure to what extent. Surely they could have amended that and volleyed this back at Sturgeon?
We already have higher taxes here in Scotland, so an obvious mechanism to pay back the "Marshall/Sunak plan".
The obvious plan would be to do a complex international financing arrangement via a nominal land purchase in Panama.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
What the studies do actually say is that the new variant is milder and that the loss of immunity is slow and over a period of many, many months.
All the rest is speculation at this stage.
Slightly milder than delta - but as dangerous for the population as the original strain. And as immunity begins to wane, which it will now, we may be in real trouble.
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong. But I am not ashamed to say what the studies actually say
Yes, if Omicron had a time machine and went back to late-2019 we would have been in a much worse position. But virtually everyone in the country now has some evidence of immunity to Covid, whether from vaccination or prior infection. The key stat is whether or not Omicron is more or less severe than the variant it is replacing. Thankfully for us it is less.
Moderately. If there is any waning in immunity we are in trouble. As I keep saying.
The optics of the Welsh and Scots... with their noses pressed up against the window pane....watching the English party on.....Ooh-er...
Is Drakeford closing the bridges?
Not this time and he can stuff it.
I'm off to Bournemouth on Thursday to watch the football in a sold-out away end before heading back to Cardiff.
I'm told Drakeford will be reviewing restrictions on the 10th Jan relating to sport. Let's see which way he jumps, as he's truly out on a limb now. The cynic in me says that the behind closed doors ludicrousness will be lifted before the 6 Nations and the world's biggest pub is opened in the heart of the Welsh capital.
While there has been some divergence between England and Wales before, not to this extent.
And both he and Sturgeon will hold out their begging bowls for HMG financial support and time for the answer to come back - no
Drakeford will be hung out to dry on this news. This is politically astute from Johnson,, he has done himself a power of good.
(But don't forget BigG. Johnson has gone against scientific advice that he should take action now to relieve pressure on the NHS over the next weeks, simply to save his own skin).
I would qualify that by saying it is his cabinet who are in control now
I am not sure control is the word I would use.
When we hear that Grant Shapps is the most hawkish in Cabinet followed by Liz Truss, and Mad Nad is a dove, we can guess those who think they are runners and riders, are all jockeying for position post Johnson.
At least with Nurse Dorries in charge of BBC that viper pit of Socialist agitators known as The Mash Report won’t be coming back.
I'm not weighing in on the debate but it's amusing how the people who are most keen typically to call for investment are those appalled at the idea of investing in a yacht to potentially get trade deals etc
While those who are typically least keen on investment in general suddenly find it to be a great idea.
I suspect it would generate a lower return on investment then simply repealing the Bribery Act 2010.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Happy memories of Thunderbirds (first time round, long ago). Though I wonder what the chap in TB5 had done. And who would get the pink Roller with the cockney chauffeur.
Actually, that's about as much as we could afford as a state - puppets and models made out of old railway bridge kits and mixer taps.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
What the studies do actually say is that the new variant is milder and that the loss of immunity is slow and over a period of many, many months.
All the rest is speculation at this stage.
Slightly milder than delta - but as dangerous for the population as the original strain. And as immunity begins to wane, which it will now, we may be in real trouble.
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong. But I am not ashamed to say what the studies actually say
Yes, if Omicron had a time machine and went back to late-2019 we would have been in a much worse position. But virtually everyone in the country now has some evidence of immunity to Covid, whether from vaccination or prior infection. The key stat is whether or not Omicron is more or less severe than the variant it is replacing. Thankfully for us it is less.
Moderately. If there is any waning in immunity we are in trouble. As I keep saying.
Are we? That hasn't been conclusively demonstrated, assuming you are referring to the same kind of immunity as in the Imperial study.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Has it been built - I must have missed its launch
And as most of you know my son is RNLI crew, and at 4.37am this morning Beaumaris (not my sons boathouse) had a shout when an empty car was found on Britannia Bridge in the Menai Straights but after 5 hours the search was stood down
There has to be a time when we take a moment in all our family gatherings to be mindful of so many who are suffering serious mental health issues, and for those volunteers who go out in attempts to save lives
Hear hear. My membership has been renewed (well, it's automatic anyway ...).
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
Of course it is a concern.
An earthbound meteorite, or the collapse of Norwegian shelf thing, or the stopping of the gulf stream are also concerns.
At least with this one we can boost our way out of trouble.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
What the studies do actually say is that the new variant is milder and that the loss of immunity is slow and over a period of many, many months.
All the rest is speculation at this stage.
Slightly milder than delta - but as dangerous for the population as the original strain. And as immunity begins to wane, which it will now, we may be in real trouble.
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong. But I am not ashamed to say what the studies actually say
Yes, if Omicron had a time machine and went back to late-2019 we would have been in a much worse position. But virtually everyone in the country now has some evidence of immunity to Covid, whether from vaccination or prior infection. The key stat is whether or not Omicron is more or less severe than the variant it is replacing. Thankfully for us it is less.
Moderately. If there is any waning in immunity we are in trouble. As I keep saying.
Why?
Over what timescale is "waning" supposed to happen?
And why can't routine boosters fight that?
Like painting the Forth Bridge. Or the routine flu jabs.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Sending Andrew into orbit to lead a British delegation to a new space station in a galaxy far, far away with no return ticket would certainly solve some problems
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Happy memories of Thunderbirds (first time round, long ago). Though I wonder what the chap in TB5 had done. And who would get the pink Roller with the cockney chauffeur.
Actually, that's about as much as we could afford as a state - puppets and models made out of old railway bridge kits and mixer taps.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Happy memories of Thunderbirds (first time round, long ago). Though I wonder what the chap in TB5 had done. And who would get the pink Roller with the cockney chauffeur.
Actually, that's about as much as we could afford as a state - puppets and models made out of old railway bridge kits and mixer taps.
Would've been Margaret. RIP.
Of course: how could it not? Or possibly the (previous) Duchess of Rothesay.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Sending Andrew into orbit to lead a British delegation to a new space station in a galaxy far, far away with no return ticket would certainly solve some problems
As his family is anointed by god, that sounds a bit like blasphemy mate.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Sending Andrew into orbit to lead a British delegation to a new space station in a galaxy far, far away with no return ticket would certainly solve some problems
I'm actually genuinely startled to see you say anything remotely critical of royalty. Not least because he would be the next King if Charles's little accident with the BAe 146 on Islay had escalated.
Edit: Scratch that - make it the Chipmunk or Beagle (Prince W wasn't born then).
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
Ah so it's back to the models being wrong, I see
Some of them seem to think that the models aren't up to Gerry Anderson standards.
The optics of the Welsh and Scots... with their noses pressed up against the window pane....watching the English party on.....Ooh-er...
Is Drakeford closing the bridges?
Not this time and he can stuff it.
I'm off to Bournemouth on Thursday to watch the football in a sold-out away end before heading back to Cardiff.
I'm told Drakeford will be reviewing restrictions on the 10th Jan relating to sport. Let's see which way he jumps, as he's truly out on a limb now. The cynic in me says that the behind closed doors ludicrousness will be lifted before the 6 Nations and the world's biggest pub is opened in the heart of the Welsh capital.
While there has been some divergence between England and Wales before, not to this extent.
And both he and Sturgeon will hold out their begging bowls for HMG financial support and time for the answer to come back - no
Sturgeon will use the 'no' to ramp up the indi cause. both MD and NS put in the restrictions to try and make BJ's life more difficult rather than because they were all needed.
You might think that restrictions are unnecessary, but if you think either of them are making such decisions in order to make life difficult for Boris Johnson, then you're a couple of jabs short of a vaccination.
They've consistently gone further and restricted longer specifically to differentiate from the Tories. I suspect that NS would've done the same to a Labour PM too.
Yes, there have been different responses in the Senedd, Holyrood, and Westminster. But each of them are just doing what they think is best. Mark, Nicola, Boris, they're all just trying to do the best they can. Opinions differ as to the right course to take. But the idea that any of them are sitting there rubbing their hands thinking how their response should be based around making rivals' lives harder instead of what they think is best for their countries, that's total crap.
The thing that constrains Johnson is that restricting parties and mixing carries no credibility from him.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
Ah so it's back to the models being wrong, I see
The authors themselves even say that's a possibility.
Who the bloody hell is Adam Brooks? I mean, I welcome it too, but that isn't headline news. Someone I had heard of saying it was the most moronic decision in the whole history of politics might be.
He has 221 000 twitter followers and is one of the leading figures opposing restrictions and a pub owner.
I expect the Tories to get something of a Boris bounce after the PM ruled out further restrictions today, especially in England and any voters who have gone RefUK or DK will start to move back into the Tory column
I expect tomorrow's mail, express, telegraph and sun will be writing very positive columns about the decision tomorrow
He then has to hope his gamble pays off.
If the NHS falls over in three weeks time they will be kicking him again.
I have just said to my dear lady if this decision is correct then it will have huge implications for the devolved administration
If it is wrong then Boris is toast
It depends if safety first lockdown is remembered as long and bitterly as a NHS crash due late action.
I think Boris has called it right. I think vaccination works.
I also think Boris toast snyway, the country thinks he is a liar and will never listen to him again. Tories need to choose new leader asap. Boris leading them over cliff, his policy’s are dangerous crap.
So why con home got Truss three opinion points up on Rishi 😦
Boris will have reunited the right behind him after ruling out further restrictions, that will get the Tory core vote back and get a few libertarians from Labour too.
He is far safer now than he was before Christmas
I love you Aitch. You often talk so much sense. But I’m afraid that post may turn out to be a keeper.
Although with a few cocktails in me I feel a lot better now, I don’t want to be too pushy or prescriptive, but you should be having thoughts about the best tweaks to policy in the post Boris administration. It’s a chance for a reset course to the next election you don’t want to mess up.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
Ah so it's back to the models being wrong, I see
Some of them seem to think that the models aren't up to Gerry Anderson standards.
I'm very happy for them to disagree but it's not on the basis of scientific research on Omicron, it's based on feeling. Which ironically is what they accuse me of.
I will continue to air my views in the hope I am wrong.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
Ah so it's back to the models being wrong, I see
No it’s not FFS. It’s back to the models having considerable uncertainties, both in relation to the inputs they are provided with to model, and the range of uncertainties over how those inputs translate in to outputs. As the modellers are very keen to emphasise, they can’t be wrong because they don’t make predictions. They can, and certainly are, misrepresented in the media and elsewhere, not least by yourself on this thread.
I'm not weighing in on the debate but it's amusing how the people who are most keen typically to call for investment are those appalled at the idea of investing in a yacht to potentially get trade deals etc
While those who are typically least keen on investment in general suddenly find it to be a great idea.
Provide evidence a yacht improves the chances of getting a trade deal.
I'm all for sensible investment that generates a return, your point is utterly absurd
As I said I'm not weighing in on this personally. I'm not certain so have no strong opinions either way.
It's advocates certainly believe it will provide a return on investment.
But the people keenest to leap on any investment normally are against this and vice versa. For someone with no dog in this fight, it's amusing.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
What the studies do actually say is that the new variant is milder and that the loss of immunity is slow and over a period of many, many months.
All the rest is speculation at this stage.
Slightly milder than delta - but as dangerous for the population as the original strain. And as immunity begins to wane, which it will now, we may be in real trouble.
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong. But I am not ashamed to say what the studies actually say
Yes, if Omicron had a time machine and went back to late-2019 we would have been in a much worse position. But virtually everyone in the country now has some evidence of immunity to Covid, whether from vaccination or prior infection. The key stat is whether or not Omicron is more or less severe than the variant it is replacing. Thankfully for us it is less.
Moderately. If there is any waning in immunity we are in trouble. As I keep saying.
Because you keep failing to understand why the waning of the whole immune response is a lot less likely than you seem to think.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
Ah so it's back to the models being wrong, I see
No it’s not FFS. It’s back to the models having considerable uncertainties, both in relation to the inputs they are provided with to model, and the range of uncertainties over how those inputs translate in to outputs. As the modellers are very keen to emphasise, they can’t be wrong because they don’t make predictions. They can, and certainly are, misrepresented in the media and elsewhere, not least by yourself on this thread.
I have not mis-represented anything. If you would just read the studies you'd see.
You are saying the models are wrong because the output is not something you agree with.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Sending Andrew into orbit to lead a British delegation to a new space station in a galaxy far, far away with no return ticket would certainly solve some problems
As his family is anointed by god, that sounds a bit like blasphemy mate.
Only the monarch is anointed by God. Some medieval monarchs even had their brothers executed if they were too much of a threat eg Edward III had his brother George Duke of Clarence executed
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Sending Andrew into orbit to lead a British delegation to a new space station in a galaxy far, far away with no return ticket would certainly solve some problems
As his family is anointed by god, that sounds a bit like blasphemy mate.
Not a bit. It is blasphemy, subversion and treason.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
Ah so it's back to the models being wrong, I see
Models can be wrong (mine sometimes are, as my manager gently explains...), and miss important interactions or relationships
The inputs can be bonkers (what happens if we switch everything to max/min?), or simply wrong if we don't have good data
What you don't ever see in the press is the lengthy list of caveats your typical analyst will include just before the results
And if the models are wrong, they could be wrong the other way.
Let's face it, those that are anti-lockdowns and wanting to get on, see what they want to see and they go in the optimistic direction. Fine.
And I am more pessimistic so I go in the other direction. Also fine - but I don't appreciate the idea I am not being logical or making things up. I am simply repeating what the studies say
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
Ah so it's back to the models being wrong, I see
Some of them seem to think that the models aren't up to Gerry Anderson standards.
I'm very happy for them to disagree but it's not on the basis of scientific research on Omicron, it's based on feeling. Which ironically is what they accuse me of.
I will continue to air my views in the hope I am wrong.
No, it isn't based on feeling. It's based on assuming that the immune system - which humanity has studied extensively over the course of decades - continues to function along the same broad lines as it usually does. Granted, not a 100% nailed-on guarantee, but also not a coin flip, either.
I'm not weighing in on the debate but it's amusing how the people who are most keen typically to call for investment are those appalled at the idea of investing in a yacht to potentially get trade deals etc
While those who are typically least keen on investment in general suddenly find it to be a great idea.
Provide evidence a yacht improves the chances of getting a trade deal.
I'm all for sensible investment that generates a return, your point is utterly absurd
As I said I'm not weighing in on this personally. I'm not certain so have no strong opinions either way.
It's advocates certainly believe it will provide a return on investment.
But the people keenest to leap on any investment normally are against this and vice versa. For someone with no dog in this fight, it's amusing.
Who the bloody hell is Adam Brooks? I mean, I welcome it too, but that isn't headline news. Someone I had heard of saying it was the most moronic decision in the whole history of politics might be.
He has 221 000 twitter followers and is one of the leading figures opposing restrictions and a pub owner.
I expect the Tories to get something of a Boris bounce after the PM ruled out further restrictions today, especially in England and any voters who have gone RefUK or DK will start to move back into the Tory column
I expect tomorrow's mail, express, telegraph and sun will be writing very positive columns about the decision tomorrow
He then has to hope his gamble pays off.
If the NHS falls over in three weeks time they will be kicking him again.
I have just said to my dear lady if this decision is correct then it will have huge implications for the devolved administration
If it is wrong then Boris is toast
It depends if safety first lockdown is remembered as long and bitterly as a NHS crash due late action.
I think Boris has called it right. I think vaccination works.
I also think Boris toast snyway, the country thinks he is a liar and will never listen to him again. Tories need to choose new leader asap. Boris leading them over cliff, his policy’s are dangerous crap.
So why con home got Truss three opinion points up on Rishi 😦
Boris will have reunited the right behind him after ruling out further restrictions, that will get the Tory core vote back and get a few libertarians from Labour too.
He is far safer now than he was before Christmas
I love you Aitch. You often talk so much sense. But I’m afraid that post may turn out to be a keeper.
Although with a few cocktails in me I feel a lot better now, I don’t want to be too pushy or prescriptive, but you should be having thoughts about the best tweaks to policy in the post Boris administration. It’s a chance for a reset course to the next election you don’t want to mess up.
As long as Boris sticks to his no more restrictions line, his position as leader will be secure
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
Ah so it's back to the models being wrong, I see
Some of them seem to think that the models aren't up to Gerry Anderson standards.
I'm very happy for them to disagree but it's not on the basis of scientific research on Omicron, it's based on feeling. Which ironically is what they accuse me of.
I will continue to air my views in the hope I am wrong.
No, it isn't based on feeling. It's based on assuming that the immune system - which humanity has studied extensively over the course of decades - continues to function along the same broad lines as it usually does. Granted, not a 100% nailed-on guarantee, but also not a coin flip, either.
You are disagreeing with the study from Imperial, in this case.
Who the bloody hell is Adam Brooks? I mean, I welcome it too, but that isn't headline news. Someone I had heard of saying it was the most moronic decision in the whole history of politics might be.
He has 221 000 twitter followers and is one of the leading figures opposing restrictions and a pub owner.
I expect the Tories to get something of a Boris bounce after the PM ruled out further restrictions today, especially in England and any voters who have gone RefUK or DK will start to move back into the Tory column
I expect tomorrow's mail, express, telegraph and sun will be writing very positive columns about the decision tomorrow
He then has to hope his gamble pays off.
If the NHS falls over in three weeks time they will be kicking him again.
I have just said to my dear lady if this decision is correct then it will have huge implications for the devolved administration
If it is wrong then Boris is toast
It depends if safety first lockdown is remembered as long and bitterly as a NHS crash due late action.
I think Boris has called it right. I think vaccination works.
I also think Boris toast snyway, the country thinks he is a liar and will never listen to him again. Tories need to choose new leader asap. Boris leading them over cliff, his policy’s are dangerous crap.
So why con home got Truss three opinion points up on Rishi 😦
I largely agree but Conhome is not the arbiter on who takes over
The bit we probably don’t agree on, how long the smell lingers once bin with the fish head in taken out the house.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
Ah so it's back to the models being wrong, I see
Some of them seem to think that the models aren't up to Gerry Anderson standards.
I'm very happy for them to disagree but it's not on the basis of scientific research on Omicron, it's based on feeling. Which ironically is what they accuse me of.
I will continue to air my views in the hope I am wrong.
No you've misunderstood and are misrepresenting the studies. As others have tried to clear up with you.
The idea of all immunity waning has been modelled and it's bad if that happens but it's not predicted. It isn't what the models are saying will happen.
It's no different to modelling what happens if an asteroid strikes. Doesn't mean we should expect an asteroid strike next Thursday and 10:32pm.
And if the models are wrong, they could be wrong the other way.
Let's face it, those that are anti-lockdowns and wanting to get on, see what they want to see and they go in the optimistic direction. Fine.
And I am more pessimistic so I go in the other direction. Also fine - but I don't appreciate the idea I am not being logical or making things up. I am simply repeating what the studies say
No, I don't think you are simply repeating what they say. You are implying that an increased risk of hospitalisation or death will happen due to waning antibodies. That's not what the authors said. It was a worst-case scenario that may happen, with a bunch of caveats about how their model is incomplete.
Who the bloody hell is Adam Brooks? I mean, I welcome it too, but that isn't headline news. Someone I had heard of saying it was the most moronic decision in the whole history of politics might be.
He has 221 000 twitter followers and is one of the leading figures opposing restrictions and a pub owner.
I expect the Tories to get something of a Boris bounce after the PM ruled out further restrictions today, especially in England and any voters who have gone RefUK or DK will start to move back into the Tory column
I expect tomorrow's mail, express, telegraph and sun will be writing very positive columns about the decision tomorrow
He then has to hope his gamble pays off.
If the NHS falls over in three weeks time they will be kicking him again.
I have just said to my dear lady if this decision is correct then it will have huge implications for the devolved administration
If it is wrong then Boris is toast
It depends if safety first lockdown is remembered as long and bitterly as a NHS crash due late action.
I think Boris has called it right. I think vaccination works.
I also think Boris toast snyway, the country thinks he is a liar and will never listen to him again. Tories need to choose new leader asap. Boris leading them over cliff, his policy’s are dangerous crap.
So why con home got Truss three opinion points up on Rishi 😦
I largely agree but Conhome is not the arbiter on who takes over
The bit we probably don’t agree on, how long the smell lingers once bin with the fish head in taken out the house.
How long the smell of the new wallpaper and paint lingers in No. 10?
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
Ah so it's back to the models being wrong, I see
Some of them seem to think that the models aren't up to Gerry Anderson standards.
I'm very happy for them to disagree but it's not on the basis of scientific research on Omicron, it's based on feeling. Which ironically is what they accuse me of.
I will continue to air my views in the hope I am wrong.
No you've misunderstood and are misrepresenting the studies. As others have tried to clear up with you.
The idea of all immunity waning has been modelled and it's bad if that happens but it's not predicted. It isn't what the models are saying will happen.
It's no different to modelling what happens if an asteroid strikes. Doesn't mean we should expect an asteroid strike next Thursday and 10:32pm.
I never said all immunity would wane, why don't you try reading what I actually write rather than the posts you make up in your head.
You don't like lockdowns, we get it. And you will point to anything that validates that POV. I am more cautious, I am reading and repeating what the studies say - and they make note of waning immunity being a concern.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
What the studies do actually say is that the new variant is milder and that the loss of immunity is slow and over a period of many, many months.
All the rest is speculation at this stage.
Slightly milder than delta - but as dangerous for the population as the original strain. And as immunity begins to wane, which it will now, we may be in real trouble.
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong. But I am not ashamed to say what the studies actually say
Yes, if Omicron had a time machine and went back to late-2019 we would have been in a much worse position. But virtually everyone in the country now has some evidence of immunity to Covid, whether from vaccination or prior infection. The key stat is whether or not Omicron is more or less severe than the variant it is replacing. Thankfully for us it is less.
Moderately. If there is any waning in immunity we are in trouble. As I keep saying.
Why?
Over what timescale is "waning" supposed to happen?
And why can't routine boosters fight that?
Like painting the Forth Bridge. Or the routine flu jabs.
I'm sure our immunity to the common cold wanes over time too. And then we catch it again. And our immunity is boosted. And wanes again.
Most of the studies that look at real word data on waning immunity only look at immunity against symptomatic infection, because it's easier to measure, but that's not really the societally-relevant metric, which is immunity against severe illness.
Is there any reason to think that also wanes at the same rate, or would it be expected to hold up better because it's provided by parts of the immune system that hold their memory for longer?
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
Ah so it's back to the models being wrong, I see
Some of them seem to think that the models aren't up to Gerry Anderson standards.
I'm very happy for them to disagree but it's not on the basis of scientific research on Omicron, it's based on feeling. Which ironically is what they accuse me of.
I will continue to air my views in the hope I am wrong.
No, it isn't based on feeling. It's based on assuming that the immune system - which humanity has studied extensively over the course of decades - continues to function along the same broad lines as it usually does. Granted, not a 100% nailed-on guarantee, but also not a coin flip, either.
You are disagreeing with the study from Imperial, in this case.
As has already been pointed out to you, you haven't bothered to read the study, and are basing all this on the headline of a press release that you haven't understood.
And if the models are wrong, they could be wrong the other way.
Let's face it, those that are anti-lockdowns and wanting to get on, see what they want to see and they go in the optimistic direction. Fine.
And I am more pessimistic so I go in the other direction. Also fine - but I don't appreciate the idea I am not being logical or making things up. I am simply repeating what the studies say
No, I don't think you are simply repeating what they say. You are implying that an increased risk of hospitalisation or death will happen due to waning antibodies. That's not what the authors said. It was a worst-case scenario that may happen, with a bunch of caveats about how their model is incomplete.
It is something they said could and possibly will happen, if immunity wanes and/or people remain unvaccinated to a significant degree.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
Ah so it's back to the models being wrong, I see
Some of them seem to think that the models aren't up to Gerry Anderson standards.
I'm very happy for them to disagree but it's not on the basis of scientific research on Omicron, it's based on feeling. Which ironically is what they accuse me of.
I will continue to air my views in the hope I am wrong.
No, it isn't based on feeling. It's based on assuming that the immune system - which humanity has studied extensively over the course of decades - continues to function along the same broad lines as it usually does. Granted, not a 100% nailed-on guarantee, but also not a coin flip, either.
You are disagreeing with the study from Imperial, in this case.
As has already been pointed out to you, you haven't bothered to read the study, and are basing all this on the headline of a press release that you haven't understood.
No I read the study. You and others are simply looking at it from the more optimistic POV. I am more pessimistic.
He is being as pessimistic (OMG! There's a problem!) as much as some others are being optimistic ("Hey, chill, it's all fine!")
I'm leaning towards the latter POV, but his position is at least arguable, if pessimistic.
Please note that I am note saying ‘it’s all fine’. I suspect we will have a sticky month or two, with a lot of staffing issues and some increase in patients in hospital. It already looks that there is less need for ventilation in the latest admissions than in previous waves, as was the case in SA. My argument is that @CorrectHorseBattery is fixated on the decline of nABs to the exclusion of all else, and this is not something virologists and immunologists would expect. There will be a decline over time if the totality of the immune response, but I believe I have seen evidence for SARS that there is still a response 20 years later. Quite likely to be the case of Covid too.
And if the models are wrong, they could be wrong the other way.
Let's face it, those that are anti-lockdowns and wanting to get on, see what they want to see and they go in the optimistic direction. Fine.
And I am more pessimistic so I go in the other direction. Also fine - but I don't appreciate the idea I am not being logical or making things up. I am simply repeating what the studies say
No, I don't think you are simply repeating what they say. You are implying that an increased risk of hospitalisation or death will happen due to waning antibodies. That's not what the authors said. It was a worst-case scenario that may happen, with a bunch of caveats about how their model is incomplete.
It is something they said could and possibly will happen, if immunity wanes and/or people remain unvaccinated to a significant degree.
Please actually read the study!
You were saying earlier that it will happen. Note that is slightly different from saying something could possibly happen, maybe.
Who the bloody hell is Adam Brooks? I mean, I welcome it too, but that isn't headline news. Someone I had heard of saying it was the most moronic decision in the whole history of politics might be.
He has 221 000 twitter followers and is one of the leading figures opposing restrictions and a pub owner.
I expect the Tories to get something of a Boris bounce after the PM ruled out further restrictions today, especially in England and any voters who have gone RefUK or DK will start to move back into the Tory column
I expect tomorrow's mail, express, telegraph and sun will be writing very positive columns about the decision tomorrow
He then has to hope his gamble pays off.
If the NHS falls over in three weeks time they will be kicking him again.
I have just said to my dear lady if this decision is correct then it will have huge implications for the devolved administration
If it is wrong then Boris is toast
It depends if safety first lockdown is remembered as long and bitterly as a NHS crash due late action.
I think Boris has called it right. I think vaccination works.
I also think Boris toast snyway, the country thinks he is a liar and will never listen to him again. Tories need to choose new leader asap. Boris leading them over cliff, his policy’s are dangerous crap.
So why con home got Truss three opinion points up on Rishi 😦
I largely agree but Conhome is not the arbiter on who takes over
The bit we probably don’t agree on, how long the smell lingers once bin with the fish head in taken out the house.
How long the smell of the new wallpaper and paint lingers in No. 10?
The fish always rots from the head.
I have this for Jessop in reply to what he said earlier.
Probably just noise to huge testing mistake.
Symptoms are starting v early w Omicron (for a number of reasons I’ve discussed)
This means that there is a chance the virus isnt yet growing in the nose when you first test
Virus may start further down. Throat swab + nasal may improve chances a swab picks up virus. https://t.co/NfxHqjKpIo
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
Ah so it's back to the models being wrong, I see
No it’s not FFS. It’s back to the models having considerable uncertainties, both in relation to the inputs they are provided with to model, and the range of uncertainties over how those inputs translate in to outputs. As the modellers are very keen to emphasise, they can’t be wrong because they don’t make predictions. They can, and certainly are, misrepresented in the media and elsewhere, not least by yourself on this thread.
I have not mis-represented anything. If you would just read the studies you'd see.
You are saying the models are wrong because the output is not something you agree with.
Let's see your models.
A key test for any model is if you chuck a set of fairly standard inputs into it and it spits out a silly result, then you've usually made a big error somewhere.
Therefore, it is legit to look at an unexpected number from a model and raise an eyebrow.
For Covid, you can usually only do this kind of analysis in retrospect. And the experience of the summer would suggest there was something wrong, either in the model or the data used.
I am being shouted down and told I don't understand because I disagree with the consensus here. It's my POV, it's based on the evidence.
Is it pessimistic, yes. But it's exactly the same as those saying "just get on with it, nothing to worry about" which there is no evidence for. And yet they don't get the same response.
I'm not weighing in on the debate but it's amusing how the people who are most keen typically to call for investment are those appalled at the idea of investing in a yacht to potentially get trade deals etc
While those who are typically least keen on investment in general suddenly find it to be a great idea.
Provide evidence a yacht improves the chances of getting a trade deal.
I'm all for sensible investment that generates a return, your point is utterly absurd
As I said I'm not weighing in on this personally. I'm not certain so have no strong opinions either way.
It's advocates certainly believe it will provide a return on investment.
But the people keenest to leap on any investment normally are against this and vice versa. For someone with no dog in this fight, it's amusing.
I'm keen in investment, and I think a Royal Yacht *could* be a good idea - as ever, the implementation matters. I also agree with Carnyx's comment wrt crewing it.
It could be brilliant for the country; it could be a dud.
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
I am being shouted down and told I don't understand because I disagree with the consensus here. It's my POV, it's based on the evidence.
Is it pessimistic, yes. But it's exactly the same as those saying "just get on with it, nothing to worry about" which there is no evidence for. And yet they don't get the same response.
No one is shouting down anyone, no one is telling anyone not to say anything. We are just debating.
And if the models are wrong, they could be wrong the other way.
Let's face it, those that are anti-lockdowns and wanting to get on, see what they want to see and they go in the optimistic direction. Fine.
And I am more pessimistic so I go in the other direction. Also fine - but I don't appreciate the idea I am not being logical or making things up. I am simply repeating what the studies say
No, I don't think you are simply repeating what they say. You are implying that an increased risk of hospitalisation or death will happen due to waning antibodies. That's not what the authors said. It was a worst-case scenario that may happen, with a bunch of caveats about how their model is incomplete.
It is something they said could and possibly will happen, if immunity wanes and/or people remain unvaccinated to a significant degree.
Please actually read the study!
You were saying earlier that it will happen. Note that is slightly different from saying something could possibly happen, maybe.
Eh? I said I hope I am wrong, that is not implying it will happen for 100%.
You don't know what you say will happen either. Some doubt is clearly implied
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Sending Andrew into orbit to lead a British delegation to a new space station in a galaxy far, far away with no return ticket would certainly solve some problems
As his family is anointed by god, that sounds a bit like blasphemy mate.
Only the monarch is anointed by God. Some medieval monarchs even had their brothers executed if they were too much of a threat eg Edward III had his brother George Duke of Clarence executed
I am being shouted down and told I don't understand because I disagree with the consensus here. It's my POV, it's based on the evidence.
Is it pessimistic, yes. But it's exactly the same as those saying "just get on with it, nothing to worry about" which there is no evidence for. And yet they don't get the same response.
No one is shouting down anyone, no one is telling anyone not to say anything. We are just debating.
I am not accusing you of not being able to read, or misunderstanding. But that is what others are accusing me of
Who the bloody hell is Adam Brooks? I mean, I welcome it too, but that isn't headline news. Someone I had heard of saying it was the most moronic decision in the whole history of politics might be.
He has 221 000 twitter followers and is one of the leading figures opposing restrictions and a pub owner.
I expect the Tories to get something of a Boris bounce after the PM ruled out further restrictions today, especially in England and any voters who have gone RefUK or DK will start to move back into the Tory column
I expect tomorrow's mail, express, telegraph and sun will be writing very positive columns about the decision tomorrow
He then has to hope his gamble pays off.
If the NHS falls over in three weeks time they will be kicking him again.
I have just said to my dear lady if this decision is correct then it will have huge implications for the devolved administration
If it is wrong then Boris is toast
It depends if safety first lockdown is remembered as long and bitterly as a NHS crash due late action.
I think Boris has called it right. I think vaccination works.
I also think Boris toast snyway, the country thinks he is a liar and will never listen to him again. Tories need to choose new leader asap. Boris leading them over cliff, his policy’s are dangerous crap.
So why con home got Truss three opinion points up on Rishi 😦
Boris will have reunited the right behind him after ruling out further restrictions, that will get the Tory core vote back and get a few libertarians from Labour too.
He is far safer now than he was before Christmas
I love you Aitch. You often talk so much sense. But I’m afraid that post may turn out to be a keeper.
Although with a few cocktails in me I feel a lot better now, I don’t want to be too pushy or prescriptive, but you should be having thoughts about the best tweaks to policy in the post Boris administration. It’s a chance for a reset course to the next election you don’t want to mess up.
As long as Boris sticks to his no more restrictions line, his position as leader will be secure
And the policy direction he is taking, can’t be improved in your opinion?
Bloody hell, I disappear for a while and return to find a million posts and still going on waning immunity yes/no/don't know; though far be it from me to comment on either repetition or speculation.
Meanwhile, I gather Big G still has no intention of voting for Drakeford.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
Ah so it's back to the models being wrong, I see
Some of them seem to think that the models aren't up to Gerry Anderson standards.
I'm very happy for them to disagree but it's not on the basis of scientific research on Omicron, it's based on feeling. Which ironically is what they accuse me of.
I will continue to air my views in the hope I am wrong.
No you've misunderstood and are misrepresenting the studies. As others have tried to clear up with you.
The idea of all immunity waning has been modelled and it's bad if that happens but it's not predicted. It isn't what the models are saying will happen.
It's no different to modelling what happens if an asteroid strikes. Doesn't mean we should expect an asteroid strike next Thursday and 10:32pm.
I never said all immunity would wane, why don't you try reading what I actually write rather than the posts you make up in your head.
You don't like lockdowns, we get it. And you will point to anything that validates that POV. I am more cautious, I am reading and repeating what the studies say - and they make note of waning immunity being a concern.
Please quote chapter and verse where the studies say what you claim they say. Because many have now said that they don't say what you're saying.
And if the models are wrong, they could be wrong the other way.
Let's face it, those that are anti-lockdowns and wanting to get on, see what they want to see and they go in the optimistic direction. Fine.
And I am more pessimistic so I go in the other direction. Also fine - but I don't appreciate the idea I am not being logical or making things up. I am simply repeating what the studies say
No, I don't think you are simply repeating what they say. You are implying that an increased risk of hospitalisation or death will happen due to waning antibodies. That's not what the authors said. It was a worst-case scenario that may happen, with a bunch of caveats about how their model is incomplete.
It is something they said could and possibly will happen, if immunity wanes and/or people remain unvaccinated to a significant degree.
Please actually read the study!
You were saying earlier that it will happen. Note that is slightly different from saying something could possibly happen, maybe.
Eh? I said I hope I am wrong, that is not implying it will happen for 100%.
You don't know what you say will happen either. Some doubt is clearly implied
Here's a recent quote where you say that the studies show the drop in immunity means more people in hospital, and that to disagree with that is to disagree with the studies. The studies have not demonstrated that a drop in immunity will result in more people in hospital. They have said that in a worst-case scenario, with various caveats with regards to their model, it may lead to more people in hospital.
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
And if the models are wrong, they could be wrong the other way.
Let's face it, those that are anti-lockdowns and wanting to get on, see what they want to see and they go in the optimistic direction. Fine.
And I am more pessimistic so I go in the other direction. Also fine - but I don't appreciate the idea I am not being logical or making things up. I am simply repeating what the studies say
The models have good outcomes. They have bad outcomes. They have some very bad outcomes. They have outcomes where different people will disagree on whether the outcomes are good or bad or somewhere in between. They have outcomes where different people disagree on the extent to which we should take pro-active (and, particularly, damaging) action to mitigate. There are some who think that no outcomes justify some of the things the Govt has done.
Furthermore the models acknowledge that they are based on significant uncertainties which can only be filled with real world data. A bone of contention in the debate on this thread is the extent to which accumulated knowledge about how viruses and the immune system work in general should be assumed within the model. The approach of the modellers (or those providing inputs to the modellers) appears to be “not much”. They want Covid specific data.
Anyway, i’ve had enough - i’ve tried to explain my position and understanding enough times, but it obviously isn’t working.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
Ah so it's back to the models being wrong, I see
Some of them seem to think that the models aren't up to Gerry Anderson standards.
I'm very happy for them to disagree but it's not on the basis of scientific research on Omicron, it's based on feeling. Which ironically is what they accuse me of.
I will continue to air my views in the hope I am wrong.
No you've misunderstood and are misrepresenting the studies. As others have tried to clear up with you.
The idea of all immunity waning has been modelled and it's bad if that happens but it's not predicted. It isn't what the models are saying will happen.
It's no different to modelling what happens if an asteroid strikes. Doesn't mean we should expect an asteroid strike next Thursday and 10:32pm.
I never said all immunity would wane, why don't you try reading what I actually write rather than the posts you make up in your head.
You don't like lockdowns, we get it. And you will point to anything that validates that POV. I am more cautious, I am reading and repeating what the studies say - and they make note of waning immunity being a concern.
Please quote chapter and verse where the studies say what you claim they say. Because many have now said that they don't say what you're saying.
I posted it earlier, I am not going to keep re-posting the same thing over and over.
Why don't you post evidence for "everything is fine, just infect each other"? Just like the evidence of herd immunity we're still waiting for from last year?
Who the bloody hell is Adam Brooks? I mean, I welcome it too, but that isn't headline news. Someone I had heard of saying it was the most moronic decision in the whole history of politics might be.
He has 221 000 twitter followers and is one of the leading figures opposing restrictions and a pub owner.
I expect the Tories to get something of a Boris bounce after the PM ruled out further restrictions today, especially in England and any voters who have gone RefUK or DK will start to move back into the Tory column
I expect tomorrow's mail, express, telegraph and sun will be writing very positive columns about the decision tomorrow
He then has to hope his gamble pays off.
If the NHS falls over in three weeks time they will be kicking him again.
I have just said to my dear lady if this decision is correct then it will have huge implications for the devolved administration
If it is wrong then Boris is toast
It depends if safety first lockdown is remembered as long and bitterly as a NHS crash due late action.
I think Boris has called it right. I think vaccination works.
I also think Boris toast snyway, the country thinks he is a liar and will never listen to him again. Tories need to choose new leader asap. Boris leading them over cliff, his policy’s are dangerous crap.
So why con home got Truss three opinion points up on Rishi 😦
I largely agree but Conhome is not the arbiter on who takes over
The bit we probably don’t agree on, how long the smell lingers once bin with the fish head in taken out the house.
I just cannot see Boris recovering, as he is now so much associated with one rule for us, one rule for everyone else
The Royal parasites should fund their own yacht, we shouldn't spend this money on the country's largest benefit scroungers, but use the money to look after our children.
England could fit an air purifier to every classroom for half the price of the new royal yacht, a move which scientists and campaigners say would significantly reduce the spread of Covid in schools.
The move would cost about £140m, according to calculations by the Liberal Democrats. Government sources have said there will be no delay to the start of the school term, despite surging Omicron cases, and that any additional restrictions will not include classroom closures.
The Government have funded the new Royal Yacht as a great tool to sell global Britain post Brexit and sign new trade deals and attract trade across the globe.
The Royal family have not asked for it
What an utter load of drivel
I think Charles/William would be absolutely desperate to avoid this in the middle of a pandemic. Awful PR.
I view the Royals as rich people who have to spend their whole lives under the spotlight and do a series of incredibly boring and meaningless tasks.
If we go for a Republic, they'll remain rich and keep the nice bits (Sandringham/Balmoral etc) and have a sudden improvement in their work/life balance.
The people voted for Brexit and they now have a great new yacht to sell the global Britain they voted for.
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Deeply unambitious. Maybe a whole set of craft to reflect the 21st century?
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles) - A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla) - A space shuttle (William) - Submarine (Kate) - Space station (Andrew)
Sending Andrew into orbit to lead a British delegation to a new space station in a galaxy far, far away with no return ticket would certainly solve some problems
As his family is anointed by god, that sounds a bit like blasphemy mate.
Only the monarch is anointed by God. Some medieval monarchs even had their brothers executed if they were too much of a threat eg Edward III had his brother George Duke of Clarence executed
Ah, the famous barrel of wine (and you mean Edward IV incidentally).
Of course, their brother also had his nephews murdered. As did King John. Henry VII had divers cousins executed, as did Henry V. Henry VI is generally thought to have had his Uncle Humphrey murdered in 1447.
I am being shouted down and told I don't understand because I disagree with the consensus here. It's my POV, it's based on the evidence.
Is it pessimistic, yes. But it's exactly the same as those saying "just get on with it, nothing to worry about" which there is no evidence for. And yet they don't get the same response.
No one is shouting down anyone, no one is telling anyone not to say anything. We are just debating.
I am not accusing you of not being able to read, or misunderstanding. But that is what others are accusing me of
That's not shouting down, you are able to rebut them by (as you have continuously done today!).
And if the models are wrong, they could be wrong the other way.
Let's face it, those that are anti-lockdowns and wanting to get on, see what they want to see and they go in the optimistic direction. Fine.
And I am more pessimistic so I go in the other direction. Also fine - but I don't appreciate the idea I am not being logical or making things up. I am simply repeating what the studies say
No, I don't think you are simply repeating what they say. You are implying that an increased risk of hospitalisation or death will happen due to waning antibodies. That's not what the authors said. It was a worst-case scenario that may happen, with a bunch of caveats about how their model is incomplete.
It is something they said could and possibly will happen, if immunity wanes and/or people remain unvaccinated to a significant degree.
Please actually read the study!
You were saying earlier that it will happen. Note that is slightly different from saying something could possibly happen, maybe.
Eh? I said I hope I am wrong, that is not implying it will happen for 100%.
You don't know what you say will happen either. Some doubt is clearly implied
Here's a recent quote where you say that the studies show the drop in immunity means more people in hospital, and that to disagree with that is to disagree with the studies. The studies have not demonstrated that a drop in immunity will result in more people in hospital. They have said that in a worst-case scenario, with various caveats with regards to their model, it may lead to more people in hospital.
If we believe in science here as we do, then we need to assess the science at it exists. This clearly makes mention of waning immunity and the drop in immunity = more people in hospital.
Now I am happy to discuss that this may or may not be true - but to say so is to disagree with the studies, which people seem happy to cherry pick for other points of view.
If immunity wanes, more people will end up in hospital. That is what the studies say.
I am not saying that immunity will absolutely wane - but that is what the studies say is a strong possibility.
You must agree with the implication or you wouldn't support boosters.
Sky News reporter, but why aren't we locking down....we looked at the data....but why aren't we having new restrictions...we looked at the data....but why aren't we having new restrictions...we looked at the data....but Scotland and Wales have restrictions, why aren't we having new restrictions....people weren't following the rules by wearing a mask at football....that isn't the rule.....RCN says we need restrictions.....
Its like a broken record. More one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
It is a concern because they have modelled waning immunity and limited secondary protection and it leads to serious outcomes. What generates the concern is the outcomes in the model. It doesn’t necessarily follow that such concerns are justified if the basic input (limited secondary protection) is unsound. They make no assessment on that beyond that it is “unknown”.
Ah so it's back to the models being wrong, I see
Some of them seem to think that the models aren't up to Gerry Anderson standards.
I'm very happy for them to disagree but it's not on the basis of scientific research on Omicron, it's based on feeling. Which ironically is what they accuse me of.
I will continue to air my views in the hope I am wrong.
No, it isn't based on feeling. It's based on assuming that the immune system - which humanity has studied extensively over the course of decades - continues to function along the same broad lines as it usually does. Granted, not a 100% nailed-on guarantee, but also not a coin flip, either.
You are disagreeing with the study from Imperial, in this case.
As has already been pointed out to you, you haven't bothered to read the study, and are basing all this on the headline of a press release that you haven't understood.
No I read the study. You and others are simply looking at it from the more optimistic POV. I am more pessimistic.
I'll agree with that if you also agree that the optimistic viewpoint is significantly more likely to happen than the pessimistic one. It's not just 50/50.
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.
Then why the caveat about the T-cell stuff, surely that should be included in such a model?
As I said, there is an awful lot of wishful thinking here on the basis of "T-cells" being the answer. I am not convinced without further evidence
I think you simply do not understand the role of T-cells etc in the complexity of the immune response. You seem fixated on waning immunity, measured simply by the decline of nABs, and post a link/quote from a modelling paper which makes extensive use of ‘may’ to caveat unknowns.
You have no evidence to the contrary. When it exists, we can discuss it then. For now I will stick by what the studies actually say.
You seem happy to cherry pick from those studies, the bits you like - and to ignore the bits you don't
You aren't sticking to what they say though, are you? You are saying waning immunity will lead to more people in hospital. That's not what they've said.
Yes it is.
No, they are not certain, and they even admit their model is not complete. You've just ignored all those caveats and assumed their worst case scenario is true.
And you've assumed everything is fine without any evidence to support that either
See my 5:23 post. It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
The Imperial study I mentioned makes note of the fact that weakened immunity is a concern. Do you disagree with Imperial?
The Imperial paper is a modelling report. The ‘immunity’ they use is the efficacy of circulating antibodies, and explicitly doesn’t include the other arms of the immune system. The paper I posted suggests the uncertainties (which is what they are, so ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ doesn’t come int it) are likely to be as much on the upside as the downside.
Comments
He is far safer now than he was before Christmas
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/charles-and-william-arent-on-board-for-downing-street-royal-yacht-plan-0mq7vhl0c
Perhaps a Government spokesman could enlighten us.... Is Mr HYFUD around anywhere?
The royals did not ask for it but will benefit from it too as ambassadors for the UK abroad
Let's say your point about waning immunity is critically important - I honestly have no idea whether it is or not but let's take it as read for the purposes of discussion. What can be done about it? Yes, get on with planning to give everyone their 4th jab. Then what? By the time you're at the end of the 4th jabs, the initial 4th-jab cohorts will probably be needing their 5th jabs if the immunity is waning on the timescales of the data you are citing.
What then? I'm not convinced endless jabs in perpetuity are going to be any more popular than restrictions. Are we just hoping that something else comes along or that spring and summers rescues us for a little while?
All the rest is speculation at this stage.
It’s simply inaccurate to say there’s no evidence for maintained T-cell effectiveness.
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong. But I am not ashamed to say what the studies actually say
And I dispute the statement "for using evidence that is there". it's not evidence, it's their (self-described) worst-case scenario.
You keep acting like immunity is going to wane over days or weeks instead of months.
If it's over six months then you prepare to do another booster in six months time.
What's the big deal?
Now that would be seriously strange.
And to some extent arguing for alternative solutions to potential issues.
As for the concerns on waning immunity - it seems to me that a substantial part of the pressure for new restrictions are currently based not so much on direct impacts on serious illness (where the broad consensus seems to be that protection from vaccines and/or prior infection will hold up), but knock on impacts due to current requirements on isolation and quarantine in hospitals and wider society.
- A hypersonic rocket plane (Charles)
- A larger, more versatile supersonic plane (Camilla)
- A space shuttle (William)
- Submarine (Kate)
- Space station (Andrew)
And as most of you know my son is RNLI crew, and at 4.37am this morning Beaumaris (not my sons boathouse) had a shout when an empty car was found on Britannia Bridge in the Menai Straights but after 5 hours the search was stood down
There has to be a time when we take a moment in all our family gatherings to be mindful of so many who are suffering serious mental health issues, and for those volunteers who go out in attempts to save lives
Bet you I could sell that to Sturgeon.
Actually, that's about as much as we could afford as a state - puppets and models made out of old railway bridge kits and mixer taps.
An earthbound meteorite, or the collapse of Norwegian shelf thing, or the stopping of the gulf stream are also concerns.
At least with this one we can boost our way out of trouble.
Over what timescale is "waning" supposed to happen?
And why can't routine boosters fight that?
Like painting the Forth Bridge. Or the routine flu jabs.
He is being as pessimistic (OMG! There's a problem!) as much as some others are being optimistic ("Hey, chill, it's all fine!")
I'm leaning towards the latter POV, but his position is at least arguable, if pessimistic.
Edit: Scratch that - make it the Chipmunk or Beagle (Prince W wasn't born then).
Although with a few cocktails in me I feel a lot better now, I don’t want to be too pushy or prescriptive, but you should be having thoughts about the best tweaks to policy in the post Boris administration. It’s a chance for a reset course to the next election you don’t want to mess up.
Hospitalisations: 407
Deaths: 39
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043907/20211227_OS_Daily_Omicron_Overview_27_Dec_21.pdf
I will continue to air my views in the hope I am wrong.
It's advocates certainly believe it will provide a return on investment.
But the people keenest to leap on any investment normally are against this and vice versa. For someone with no dog in this fight, it's amusing.
You are saying the models are wrong because the output is not something you agree with.
Let's see your models.
The inputs can be bonkers (what happens if we switch everything to max/min?), or simply wrong if we don't have good data
What you don't ever see in the press is the lengthy list of caveats your typical analyst will include just before the results
Let's face it, those that are anti-lockdowns and wanting to get on, see what they want to see and they go in the optimistic direction. Fine.
And I am more pessimistic so I go in the other direction. Also fine - but I don't appreciate the idea I am not being logical or making things up. I am simply repeating what the studies say
The idea of all immunity waning has been modelled and it's bad if that happens but it's not predicted. It isn't what the models are saying will happen.
It's no different to modelling what happens if an asteroid strikes. Doesn't mean we should expect an asteroid strike next Thursday and 10:32pm.
You don't like lockdowns, we get it. And you will point to anything that validates that POV. I am more cautious, I am reading and repeating what the studies say - and they make note of waning immunity being a concern.
Most of the studies that look at real word data on waning immunity only look at immunity against symptomatic infection, because it's easier to measure, but that's not really the societally-relevant metric, which is immunity against severe illness.
Is there any reason to think that also wanes at the same rate, or would it be expected to hold up better because it's provided by parts of the immune system that hold their memory for longer?
Please actually read the study!
My argument is that @CorrectHorseBattery is fixated on the decline of nABs to the exclusion of all else, and this is not something virologists and immunologists would expect.
There will be a decline over time if the totality of the immune response, but I believe I have seen evidence for SARS that there is still a response 20 years later. Quite likely to be the case of Covid too.
I have this for Jessop in reply to what he said earlier.
Probably just noise to huge testing mistake.
Therefore, it is legit to look at an unexpected number from a model and raise an eyebrow.
For Covid, you can usually only do this kind of analysis in retrospect. And the experience of the summer would suggest there was something wrong, either in the model or the data used.
Is it pessimistic, yes. But it's exactly the same as those saying "just get on with it, nothing to worry about" which there is no evidence for. And yet they don't get the same response.
It could be brilliant for the country; it could be a dud.
As an aside, the old 'un is popular with visitors:
https://www.royalyachtbritannia.co.uk/media/2612/best-year-ever-jan-2019.pdf
Aren't Bozza and Carrie able to use it to make trade deals with far flung sunny island paradises?
You don't know what you say will happen either. Some doubt is clearly implied
If it improves, let me know.
Do you really believe that
Meanwhile, I gather Big G still has no intention of voting for Drakeford.
Furthermore the models acknowledge that they are based on significant uncertainties which can only be filled with real world data. A bone of contention in the debate on this thread is the extent to which accumulated knowledge about how viruses and the immune system work in general should be assumed within the model. The approach of the modellers (or those providing inputs to the modellers) appears to be “not much”. They want Covid specific data.
Anyway, i’ve had enough - i’ve tried to explain my position and understanding enough times, but it obviously isn’t working.
Why don't you post evidence for "everything is fine, just infect each other"? Just like the evidence of herd immunity we're still waiting for from last year?
Of course, their brother also had his nephews murdered. As did King John. Henry VII had divers cousins executed, as did Henry V. Henry VI is generally thought to have had his Uncle Humphrey murdered in 1447.
I am not saying that immunity will absolutely wane - but that is what the studies say is a strong possibility.
You must agree with the implication or you wouldn't support boosters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldVeyq58siY
Sky News reporter, but why aren't we locking down....we looked at the data....but why aren't we having new restrictions...we looked at the data....but why aren't we having new restrictions...we looked at the data....but Scotland and Wales have restrictions, why aren't we having new restrictions....people weren't following the rules by wearing a mask at football....that isn't the rule.....RCN says we need restrictions.....
Its like a broken record. More one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
The ‘immunity’ they use is the efficacy of circulating antibodies, and explicitly doesn’t include the other arms of the immune system. The paper I posted suggests the uncertainties (which is what they are, so ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ doesn’t come int it) are likely to be as much on the upside as the downside.
In any event, we will know within a week or so.