A lone infection may have changed the course of the pandemic

[zouzounaki]

What worries me is, what chance do we have of keeping sufficient lockdown/social distancing measures going until infections are at very low numbers? As soon as it looks like infections are fairly low, the pressure will be on to open up society as soon as possible. For every protective measure we remove, infection numbers will inevitably rise again, until levels become so high that measures will again be required to slow down the rise. A perfect never ending cycle until science steps up and finds a new way to eradicate the virus for good, if that proves to even be possible.

Is Sars-CoV-2 here for the long term? Yes, I think so.

aye, there is also the problem of high level of covid in the wild while increasing numbers are vaccinated encourages vaccine resistant mutations, i believe.

the lockdowns should have been stricter, get the numbers down more, and more quickly, while administering as many vaccines as possible during that timeframe would have seemed to be a better way, in my lay person’s opinion.

 

[Mr Ripple]

aye, there is also the problem of high level of covid in the wild while increasing numbers are vaccinated encourages vaccine resistant mutations, i believe.

the lockdowns should have been stricter, get the numbers down more, and more quickly, while administering as many vaccines as possible during that timeframe would have seemed to be a better way, in my lay person’s opinion.

It does stand to reason that if folk can still contract the virus after being vaccinated then the virus that's running around in a vaccinated body will learn to live with it and even fight against it.

Then if that person then infects another person then the virus will already be tolerant and possibly resistant to said vaccine.

We need a vaccine that's able to prevent it or we are potentially allowing the virus to become stronger.

 

[Mitz]

What worries me is, what chance do we have of keeping sufficient lockdown/social distancing measures going until infections are at very low numbers? As soon as it looks like infections are fairly low, the pressure will be on to open up society as soon as possible. For every protective measure we remove, infection numbers will inevitably rise again, until levels become so high that measures will again be required to slow down the rise. A perfect never ending cycle until science steps up and finds a new way to eradicate the virus for good, if that proves to even be possible.

Is Sars-CoV-2 here for the long term? Yes, I think so.

Agreed. The biggest obstacle to defeating the virus (within the UK) so far has undoubtedly been the attempted tightrope walk, trying to balance what's necessary to control the virus with trying to limit the impact on people, kids and schools, businesses and the ecomony as a whole. I think it's important to remember that the goal was never to fully eradicate the virus but simply to keep numbers to a level where infections are manageable within the health care system. Personally, I think that is a fundamental mistake. OK, we may never eradicate the virus, especially with it being so out of control globally, or it may take years or decades to do it, if we can, but I do think that the goal should have always been to eradicate it and not just to babysit manageable case rates because, IMHO, the mentality between the two is world's apart and having that mentality would have been far more effective at combating this virus.

Is there any good news?

There's plenty. The numbers have dropped enormously compared to 6 weeks ago. Millions have been vaccinated including the most vulnerable and millions more are being vaccinated. The vaccine manufacturers are already working on booster shots to be given in a few months time to deal with the variants. The use of mRNA in some of the most effective vaccines is a huge step forward and will have an enormous impact on future vaccines. We're world leading in genome sequencing and that along with our world class scientific and medical capabilities is helping us keep track of the virus' evolutionary development and making it possible to identify and counter emerging variants quickly.

Sure, it's shitty but it's not all doom and gloom mate.

 

[andipandi]

Sure, it's shitty but it's not all doom and gloom mate.

Indeed, (really) I know, the r rate is down to last July levels as well

 

[zouzounaki]

It does stand to reason that if folk can still contract the virus after being vaccinated then the virus that's running around in a vaccinated body will learn to live with it and even fight against it.

Then if that person then infects another person then the virus will already be tolerant and possibly resistant to said vaccine.

We need a vaccine that's able to prevent it or we are potentially allowing the virus to become stronger.

from what i’ve seen lately, i think they are now saying research is showing it might actually prevent people becoming infected?

 

[zouzounaki]

Agreed. The biggest obstacle to defeating the virus (within the UK) so far has undoubtedly been the attempted tightrope walk, trying to balance what's necessary to control the virus with trying to limit the impact on people, kids and schools, businesses and the ecomony as a whole. I think it's important to remember that the goal was never to fully eradicate the virus but simply to keep numbers to a level where infections are manageable within the health care system. Personally, I think that is a fundamental mistake. OK, we may never eradicate the virus, especially with it being so out of control globally, or it may take years or decades to do it, if we can, but I do think that the goal should have always been to eradicate it and not just to babysit manageable case rates because, IMHO, the mentality between the two is world's apart and having that mentality would have been far more effective at combating this virus.

aye, agreed. i think that’s the difference between us and the few places that seem to have fared much better. it seems to me our strategy is a recipe for continuous lockdowns every few months indefinitely.

 

[Mr Ripple]

from what i’ve seen lately, i think they are now saying research is showing it might actually prevent people becoming infected?

I was in a care home last week that had Covid in there despite all the residents and staff having all been vaccinated.

 

[zouzounaki]

I was in a care home last week that had Covid in there despite all the residents and staff having all been vaccinated.

i don’t think vaccines are ever 100% effective though. and we need to remember they’ve probably only had one dose, so they don’t even have the full protection.

 

[Mr Ripple]

i don’t think vaccines are ever 100% effective though. and we need to remember they’ve probably only had one dose, so they don’t even have the full protection.

When you scrutinise the definition of the term vaccine it doesnt match what's being rolled out to combat Covid.
All we get is vaccine a. Is 85% effective or vaccine b. Is 60% effective or worse still vaccine c. doesn't stop you getting covid but it does reduce the sever3by x, y, or z percent.

vaccine
/ˈvaksiːn,ˈvaksɪn/

noun

1. a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.
   "there is no vaccine against the virus"

 

[zouzounaki]

When you scrutinise the definition of the term vaccine it doesnt match what's being rolled out to combat Covid.
All we get is vaccine a. Is 85% effective or vaccine b. Is 60% effective or worse still vaccine c. doesn't stop you getting covid but it does reduce the sever3by x, y, or z percent.

vaccine
/ˈvaksiːn,ˈvaksɪn/

noun

1. a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.
   "there is no vaccine against the virus"

a. and b. are what all vaccines to, to a greater or lesser percentage, no? at least that is my understanding of it. have you not heard of someone having the flu vaccine then a month later catching the flu?