Member Info for Olpps

Sorry guys, just seen wrong thread (face palm).

A disclaimer that I do not research on this field, but @gavinship I will try to give an edi ates response to your 70% question as you keep asking it.

The 70-75% is from a study on almost 500-600 people (I forget which) so whilst not 100% accurate, is a good indicator of relatively robust protection. This is the protection against symptomatic infection, not hospitalisation or death, which we still believe will be much higher protection.

The % reflects both the affinity of the antibodies for their (now mutated) target, the sensitivity of the t-cells to the same (more so with AZ jab) and the overlap between each person's active antibody repertoire and the virus.

In terms of how long it wil last: previous jabs dropped from 92% to 64% protection over 6 months, with the drop being slow at first. HOWEVER, part of the rationale for a 6 month booster, which was planned before covid, is that one way your immune system assesses that's is by the interval between serious exposures. We give adjuvant in the vaccine which look to our bodies like a scream from the immune system that the trivial material we inject is actually a lethal threat, which makes the response stronger from the severity assessment of the immune system. We repeat this after several weeks to activate a response from the interval assessment system (these aren't the names of the systems, just the concept). A booster at 6 months, after immunity wanes, SHOULD make the immune system think it shouldn't have dropped antibodies so quickly, so extend the protection longer. How long? Who knows. I've heard estimates of 5 years but equally if serious enough the body could extend it to lifetime, we just don't know. This is one reason UK fairing better at the moment they think: 12 week interval compared with 3 week interval between first 2 doses leaned more into the interval system.

Again, not researching this as my main field, just be undergraduate degree talking, but hope this helps.

Completely agree HNS. Poor quality data leads to massive uncertainties and as I've said before I'm not comfortable with making any predictions given the limited data out atm. As of course media focus on most extreme cases to sell papers, as a balanced approach doesn't sell.

I'm probably just a bit over sensitive having heard plenty of chat not just on this board about scientists whipping this up because of bill gates/PM/big pharma etc etc. and tired of people forgetting us scientists are ****ed off too and want this over as much as the next person! I've had to cancel trip to see grandparent abroad 3 times, and frankly need a holiday but stuck with everyone else. Fortunately have odeon limitless (No cine world near me) and so get to get out regularly to watch films and escape, lol. Wish had a cine world near though: the one in Eastbourne when I went was out of this world!

I'm not saying scientists are virtuous but epidemiologists existed and had jobs before the pandemic. Computer modelling of population dynamics can be applied to many things as well and it is common for scientists to move their skills to totally new projects. Pandemic funding is up but other funding is down (CRUK funding for example has been slashed due to cancelled charity runs and diverted funding etc). I've been out of work 3 months myself, so believe me I know funding affects your life, I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm saying you're not talking about a few rogue scientists trying to eek out more money, you're talking about hundreds of modeling groups the world over, all in a conspiracy to live in a world where they get paid **** post doc salaries (because the team leaders aren't paid through grants so have job security) and can't go see family or out to night clubs, rather than "admit" they are lying sonthoer funding runs out and they have to move on to jobs at Google, Facebook or Amazon with their modelling slills, mKe more money and have everything go back to normal.

Too many typos there. Sorry, was typing on phone and forgot to check. Corrected text below.
As someone who's worked extensively on simulations for the last 5 years (not epidemiological ones, but still) I just want to say its probably not that scientists "forgot" to add data in about anti-virals or vaccine effect, nor that they are trying to sell "a lot of bull" but rather that modelling requires approximations due to unknowns (how successful are antivirals) , unknowables (what will new measures be, what will compliance rate be etc.) and limited computational resources (you can't model the movements of 60+ million people, so you use averages).
The studies didn't omit things like the vaccine protection on purpose but rather take weeks to produce so by the time you read them there may be new data they didn't account for.
Scientists also don't want to "cause mayhem": we have to live in this world too and despite what many think, we aren't all well off with tie ons to the elite.

My field of work is cancer research, I got into it after a relative died of cancer. Yet I've been asked if it's true there's a cure for cancer and we're just not telling people so we can keep making money/keep our research funded/get public praise/ control the population etc. etc. Most scientists don't think on that scale. We're fed up with missing family and friends too when we have to, and fear lockdowns.

Threads like this where everyone thinks the data is so clear before it is and think scientists are just taking the **** or fear mongering are depressing. We do the maths and give you the numbers. The studies mentioned point out their own limitations (some of you quoted them), and do a range of possibilities when we're not sure. If you don't like the results then fine. If you disagree with the methods and assumptions fair, happens all the time and some scientists do just miss obvious things at times (I had a paper rejected for this reason once too). But cut the crap of scientists as this group of others out to scare you all. We're not boogey men, we're trying to predict the future so of course it isn't perfect. But we're using the best tools available, not just our guts or our hopes and dreams.

As someone who's worked extensively on simulations for the last 5 years (not epidemiological ones, but still) I just want to say its probably not that scientists "forgot" to add data in about anti-virals or vaccine effect, nor that they are trying to sell "a lot of bull" but rather that modelling requires approximations due to unknowns (how successful are antivirals) , unknowables (what will new measures be, what will compliance rate be etc.) and limited computational resources (u can't model the movements of 60+ million people, so you use averages).
The studies didn't omit things like the vaccine protection on purpose but rather take weeks to produce so by the time you read them there may be new data they didn't account for.
Scientists also don't want to "cause mayhem": we have to live in this world too and despite what many think, we aren't all well off with tie ons to the elite.

My field of work is cancer research, I got into it after a relative died of cancer. Yet I've been asked if it's true there's a cure for cancer and we're just not telling people so we can keep making money/keep our research funded/get public praise/ control the population etc. etc. Most scientists don't think on that scale. We're fed up with missing family and friends too when we have to, and fear lockdowns.

Threads like this where everyone thinks the data is so clear before it is and think scientists are just taking the **** out far mongering are depressing. We do the maths and give you the numbers. The studies mentioned point out their own limitations (songs of you quoted them), and do a range of possibilities when we're not sure. If you don't like the results then fine. If you disagree with the methods and assumptions fair, happens all the time and some scientists do just miss obvious things at times (I had a pair rejected for this reason once too). But cut the crap of scientists as this group of others out to scare you all. We're not boogey men, we're trying to predict the future so if course it isn't perfect. But we're using the best tools available, not just our guts or our hours and dreams.

Really Interesting then. Did they say what the baseline for comparison was? Were there any negative risk increases? Can't see a link or image.

You realise it doesn't say that in your post? I haven't seen the original study, but not saying what the increase in a cinema is isn't the same as saying there is no increase in cinemas. I want cine to do well to, and think it will eventually, but no point basing hopes on false statistics.

If this holds it'll be a huge relief and not entirely surprising to me given the large number of mutations, though I would have colleagues who disagree. Still the right thing to have prepared for the worst. Just had my booster now as was offered it today so said hell yeah!

@funinvestor, I'd say I wouldn't consider it very likely that it would mutate to evade vaccine, be more transmissible AND be more lethal at the same time.

Also vaccine evasion doesn't mean that the drugs will all not work. Some, like monoclonal antibodies, would be relatively easy to evade by structural changes to the spike protein, but others such as methatrexate which modulate the immune response to prevent an over reaction causing injury should work regardless.

@sharefall, fair enough. I wasn't trying to say corona virus would be another HIV (which has fairly unique mechanisms for hiding from immune system) so if it cane across I was comparing severities I apologies. My point was just that whilst people might assume pathogens mutate to become less deadly, this isn't a given.

@tegop, the issue is that if the antivaxxers take up all the icu beds, those beds aren't available for others. Similarly even if noone dies if they get drugs in hospital, that doesn't stop hospital resources being used up and that had knock on effect for other conditions.

@ianharding, I'm not entirely sure about the data you're referring to. I think, from what I've seen, that either contagiousness of Omicron is higher than delta, but case numbers are still so low this could be a statistician artefact. As for lethality, I think it's too soon to tell.
I'm not too worried about vaccine escape just because vaccinated people are catching it as numbers are too small to compare vaxxed and unvaxed, and of course cases in the west will likely be vaccinated because most people are vaccinated. The number of mutations could be a problem for vaccines, but considering the high affinity of delta spike protein for the binding site, this many mutations may actually reduce spike affinity, giving immune systems a better chance to fight it off and making symptoms milder. That is pure speculation on my part, and it is also possible the mutations confer higher affinity binding and weaken vaccine protection : my point is it is too early to tell either way so prepare for the worst but I wouldn't expect it.

As for severity, as someone else pointed out hospitalisation lag infection by 10-14 days and deaths another few weeks after that, so not sure anyone can tell yet.

@ianharding, gotta correct you on 3 things.

1. I've said it before and I'll say it again: that isn't how pathogens work. When it comes to evolution nothing "wants" anything, it is just down what produces most high fidelity copies. HIV, Ebola and have been in humans for decades but are still as lethal. Malaria (not a virus but uses us as hosts so your argument still applies) has killed more humans than any other disease throughout history, and still is as deadly as ever. Please stop peddling the misconception that viruses always mutate to become less deadly.

2. Natural infection doesn't guarantee good immunity. With delta about 1 in 5 Natural infections fail to generate neutralising antibodies, and we know don't know if Omicron generates a natural immune response at all. That's why in vaccines we add adjuvant chemicals and space out doses to stimulate a longer lasting immune response.

3. Smallpox came in waves for over 3000 years, killing millions, before it was wiped out by vaccines. This isn't an example of a disease infecting everyone then going away as you suggest. It's a textbook example of why we need to vaccinate people against diseases if you actually want to wipe them out.

Secondly, as I've said before, no: viruses don't always mutate to become less lethal. Quote from my previous post (it's me, no other source, just don't want to retype as long). "this isn't necessarily true. Evolution doesn't plan ahead like that, it selects generation at a time. When we look around and see viruses that are not very deadly, like the cold, that is because they survive long enough for us to become familiar with them. With lethal viruses (think ebola), they rapidly kill their host pool and die out, unless they have a reservoir in another species (rabies, ebola etc.). There is no telling how many viruses burnt out by killing all their hosts in the past, as they are gone. It is a common misconception that viruses mutate to become milder. If they survive long term you can expect this, but evolution will just as readily favour a variant that kills its hosts, so long as it spreads faster overall. In the end, survival of the virus in the generational terms (days) is what is selected for, not long term, so viruses may become more or less deadly at random. All you can say is evolution will tend to make the virus more infectious, that is all.

Also, technically viruses aren't alive (they don't eat, respite or grow) and they certainly don't 'want' anything, to live or to die. They are fragments of molecular code that propogate or become obsolete based on statistical interactions with host immune systems: there is no plan, and they are not predictable like this, despite what common sense / the media will say. "

So firstly, no: mandatory vaccines are not against the Nuremberg code.
https://fullfact.org/health/nuremberg-code-covid/

Ian this isn't necessarily true. Evolution doesn't plan ahead like that, it selects generation at a time. When we look around and see viruses that are not very deadly, like the cold, that is because they survive long enough for us to become familiar with them. With lethal viruses (think ebola), they rapidly kill their host pool and die out, unless they have a reservoir in another species (rabies, ebola etc.). There is no telling how many viruses burnt out by killing all their hosts in the past, as they are gone. It is a common misconception that viruses mutate to become milder. If they survive long term you can expect this, but evolution will just as readily favour a variant that kills its hosts, so long as it spreads faster overall. In the end, survival of the virus in the generational terms (days) is what is selected for, not long term, so viruses may become more or less deadly at random. All you can say is evolution will tend to make the virus more infectious, that is all.

Also, technically viruses aren't alive (they don't eat, respite or grow) and they certainly don't 'want' anything, to live or to die. They are fragments of molecular code that propogate or become obsolete based on statistical interactions with host immune systems: there is no plan, and they are not predictable like this, despite what common sense / the media will say.

And to be clear, this is my personal opinion, not given in a professional capacity.

It's too soon to draw any firm conclusions. The large number of mutations to the spike protein is alarming as that is the most likely to affect immunity and transmissibility, however it isn't necessarily bad as excessive mutations can also reduce infectivity by degrading the fit between spike protein and host receotor: evolution isn't planned, just selected from. The questions we need answers to in UK are how does it affect vaccine immunity. That is hard to tell as it is circulating in a country with low vaccine coverage. If it bypasses immunity it could seriously affect the UK, but it would only likely be a partial bypassing, not complete, so not as bad as first wave risk in that sense. The timing of winter is very bad as NHS always gets stressed around then so even a partial breakthrough could cause serious problems.

So in summary: definitely a concern. 100% closing borders and implementing pcr tests and hotel quarantine as a precaution right call. Will it take hold or just blow over? Really is too soon to tell, no point speculating beyond that as I'd be guessing as much as the next person.

Actually no, university scientists are usually financed either through university funds from tuition fees or through grants they bring in, which mostly means a UK gov funded research institute, a charity or a joint grant from EU. Your idea that this is a hoax is just wrong. I am happy to engage with people who simply don't understand something as it's not their fault if they haven't had it explained to them how dna replication errors, natural selection, immune function or statistics etc work. But when you're convinced it's just a conspiracy and offer no concrete evidence there isn't much that can be said to help. Doesn't mean I won't contradict you (coronavirus exists as a disease) but does mean that I won't waste my time arguing when you can't even make a sensible point.