Thread: breaking covid rules

WP

It is somewhat baffling how much emphasis has been placed on the chances of having an adverse reaction to the vaccinations (blood clotting, anaphylactic etc) compared to the chances of contracting the illness, particularly if you live in the cities, and even more so the after effects of what is now collectively called "long covid."

If you are one of the susceptible few, which are not that many, but more than those at risk of vaccine after effects, Covid-19 is, as I have mentioned before, a very nasty insidious disease. We were treated to this in the very early days with Forum member Rob Streeper's account of how it laid him low for six months and he was still experiencing some side effects. That was way back in the first half of 2020.

Perhaps there are a few people out there who could benefit from 20:20 vision.

Regards
Paul

..about people walking around like nothing is going on in the states....well, how delta has changed things!

Where I am (pennsylvania, pittsburgh actually), the rates here are relatively low for delta, but I'm sure they're a lot higher than they were.

Still, most people are walking around maskless (the vaccinated rate here is very high).

Nonetheless, until data changes, it looks like pfizer is only about 40% effective in preventing delta, but highly effective still at preventing hospitalization and even more effective as a percentage in preventing death.

I don't personally want to have covid (and don't *think* that I have), but not looking forward to the idea of getting a booster shot a few months after most folks were just finished with their second shots.

Wouldn't want to be chancing it without a vaccine, but also don't want to be tied to vaccines if the chance of serious covid after two shots is low and building natural immunity from there is more effective.

Originally Posted by D.W.

Nonetheless, until data changes, it looks like pfizer is only about 40% effective in preventing delta, but highly effective still at preventing hospitalization and even more effective as a percentage in preventing death....

Wouldn't want to be chancing it without a vaccine, but also don't want to be tied to vaccines if the chance of serious covid after two shots is low and building natural immunity from there is more effective.

The western world may have to adapt its attitude towards life expectancy! It's a difficult thing to contemplate, and just as difficult to discuss without upsetting people, but currently we use medicines to keep people alive well beyond the point where nature would have "reclaimed" them. We are defying nature, and perhaps it is inevitable that nature will attempt to redress the balance? Sooner or later it will succeed!

In the case of covid, the virus (like all "lifeforms") is constantly evolving. At present, the delta strain is the one causing us most problems, but next week/month/year a new mutation will arise that is more efficient at spreading. There will, of course, be a great many mutations that are less efficient at spreading, but those will die out simply because they _are_ less efficient. The difficulty (for us) starts when the new mutation that spreads more effectively is also one that does more harm - from an evolutionary standpoint I assume the "damage" trait can't be described as "efficient" because the virus gains nothing from killing us! Nonetheless, rapid spreading plus high damage is bad for us!!

All this, it must be remembered, is nothing new. All diseases act the same way, which is why influenza kills many people every year, and also why we have a new 'flu vaccine every year - developed to address the strain (or strains) currently causing problems. It would be reasonable to assume that the situation with covid will be much the same, an annual booster developed to act against the latest strain(s) of covid.

Natural immunity is derived from the body being infected and "learning" to produce antibodies. Unfortunately the body has to learn, and produce sufficient antibodies, before the disease kills it! Subsequently the body has to "remember" how to produce those antibodies, and over time (for some diseases) it forgets. So the body, ideally, needs constant/frequent re-exposure to the disease in order to maintain its immunity. When put together, this explains "life" - the young and fit survive the new disease, develop immunity, and then enter an "arms race" with the disease to see whether the body, or the disease, can develop faster and "win". The old and unfit can't develop and maintain their immunity, so nature reclaims them. Science has stepped in and developed vaccines that allow the body to learn to produce the antibodies without having to survive the disease, but in many/most cases we need booster shots every year, five years, whatever. We, as individuals, often choose what vaccinations to worry about - as a farmer I make sure my tetanus vaccination is always up to date, for example. I also vaccinate my livestock, who also get boosters as required.

With covid, I have no doubt, we have another disease that will require frequent boosters. We have already seen that all the current vaccines decrease in efficacy over time (as the body forgets!), so unless we have constant low level re-exposure a booster seems likely. We have also seen that covid has developed some more "efficient" mutations, and that the current vaccines vary on their efficacy against the various mutations, so again a booster seems likely.

Interestingly (well, I thought so!) I was reading a paper that suggested that in fact covid is mutating at a lower rate than many other viruses, but that the mutations tend to be better (from the viruses viewpoint) and so survive and spread. Apparently many other viruses mutate at a significantly higher rate, but the mutations tend to be inferior to the parent and therefore don't survive/reproduce. That's an interesting concept, because it could be taken to mean that those other viruses have more or less reached the top of their game, but covid might still be a way from its peak variant. If anyone needed prompting to get a vaccination, perhaps this should be taken in to consideration..... we should get on top of the current strain(s) before they have the ability to mutate in to something even worse!!

I have two thoughts -from the outset, they told us that it would be a slow mutating virus, and that's true. When a new variant comes up, it lasts for months at least and other dominant strains are slow to come along. I don't know that life expectancy is something that we need to seriously adjust, but we have something that will take advantage of certain types of vulnerabilities (diabetes, serious heart diseases, immune systems damaged by cancer treatment).

What's not well established yet is whether or not boosters will be more effective than vaccine and then natural sickness on a relatively regular basis (annually).

Delta can get past two pfizers, but the death rates are only high for the unvaccinated who haven't had covid previously. So, we need to seriously contemplate in the long term once someone is vaccinated and has a low chance of death or morbidity if we're going to compare boosters or natural immunity, and that data needs to be made public.

what's totally clear is that having any comorbidities and going head long into a high viral rate transmission of covid is *bad*. The nursing home in WA state (washington in the USA) showed that lesson early - folks didn't know they were breathing huge amounts of covid and the employee group with a median age of 38 went to the hospital at a rate of 50%. The death rate among the elderly was high.

I somewhat expect that we'll find transmission rates after vaccine or illness are higher in the presence of high levels of virus in the air vs "solidly enough to catch it".

I'm sure the CDC is tracking the kind of data that I mention, but we hear little about the death rate of those who had covid previously vs. the vaccinated (in terms of the infection on the second go around). We hear constantly how much better the vaccine is, but it's only compared to the unvaccinated who haven't had covid previously. It may be that after everyone has the vaccine, we're not generally better off in the long term living on boosters.

Originally Posted by D.W.

I'm sure the CDC is tracking the kind of data that I mention, but we hear little about the death rate of those who had covid previously vs. the vaccinated (in terms of the infection on the second go around). We hear constantly how much better the vaccine is, but it's only compared to the unvaccinated who haven't had covid previously. It may be that after everyone has the vaccine, we're not generally better off in the long term living on boosters.

My suspicion is that it will depend on the background health of the individual. Much the same as for 'flu, the young and healthy can (relatively) easily deal with an annual case of the 'flu, they can survive the illness long enough for their body to learn/remember how to create the required antibodies. The old and infirm have more trouble - for influenza in Australia the death rate increases massively with age (and additional health issues).

I suspect, therefore, that the vaccination situation will go the same way as for 'flu, being that young fit people don't even know a vaccine exists, whilst older and infirm people are strongly advised to get it. I had never had a 'flu vax until I was over 50, now I get one every year and this year my doctor also recommended the pneumococcal vaccine.

Of course all this is dependent on covid staying relatively constant. If it mutated to a form that is as transmissible as delta but as with the mortality rate of SARS (10%) or MERS (35%) then all bets are off!!

I think you're right. There is some back and forth at the CDC in terms of financial interest in vaccines and continuing to test them (as there is with the university health systems here that get grants to test vaccines. For example, one of the individuals on the panel that's more or less deferred clinical testing on ivermectin has involvement in a university health system that is declared as the only system qualified to do ongoing testing - the grant size was 9 figures. Regardless of what anyone thinks of ivermectin, that should've been disclosed.

The CDC generally retracts identities of individuals in some of the committees, though I think there's a two part answer for that:
1) they should disclose information requested in FOIA requests here in the US
2) despite the FOIA issues, if they do disclose individuals involved, the nutters who think covid doesn't exist will attack

Metaanalysis suggests ivermectin is pretty effective taken at symptom onset (50-85%) as an antiviral, and potentially with some prophylactic effect. It shouldn't be used *in place* of vaccines, but potentially along with it.

I believe Merck is developing a "low cost" antiviral regimen to be taken early in covid cases (it will "only" be $700 or so).

Strangely, their comments about how it must be used match when ivermectin is or isn't effective in meta-analysis (e.g., ivermectin doesn't show much improvement in mortality if given late - to my knowledge, nothing so far really shows effectiveness for long haulers carrying a whole bunch of nonviable proteins).

My point being in the US that if there are two alternatives, the one that continues the flow of money better will be the one that's chosen. The fact that a clinical trial of ivermectin hasn't been done here based on findings of meta-analysis is bonkers.

On the investor side, Pfizer has stated that they expect that the covid vaccines will become "durable long term revenue" like the flu vaccine.

Many here (young or not) do get the flu shot every year. I've generally always gotten it - only learned last year that as someone who has respiratory sickness each year (not critical, just annoying - bronchitis) that there's a fair chance that the flu vax increases the likelihood I"ll end up with bronchitis (this conclusion is the result of trivalent vaccine clinical trials and is statistically significant with an expected multiplier of 4). I'm a little that nobody has ever mentioned that to me as bronchitis is a multi-week totally survivable non-threatening but completely miserable state to be in. I've never had a case of the flu that lasted more than a couple of days, and even at that only one of those days in each case (twice in the last 21 years) was a partial loss.

At any rate, if the data suggests categories of individuals should be getting boosters often (I think that will be the legitimate case for vulnerable individuals who don't have an effective robust response), and some large cohort is just as well off (comparing covid symptoms and outcomes to the same with vaccine, plus vaccine side effects), we won't know for quite some time.

It seems appropriate right now for them to be studying third shots for the vulnerable, and I think they are. It seems just as appropriate to measure the long term outcome of the non-vulnerable groups to vaccine vs. actually getting covid as the idea that the vaccinated can't get or spread covid is now no longer accurate.

(the odds are on our side for covid to become more transmissible but no more severe - long-term experience with virii always leads to the most deadly having a short widespread public life due both to their effectiveness (incapacitating their hosts and limiting spread) and our response. But something like delta that leaves most people ambulatory and can spread before they show symptoms could have a long lifetime until something as mild but even more transmissible comes along).

One thing I learned in my years as a consultant in big pharmaceutical companies is that profit is the only driver behind the business. It's nice to be able to say "we saved humanity" (or whatever) but it's still not worth doing if it can't be turned into $$$$....

Regarding the "high damage" mutations, yes indeed they do tend to suffer from killing the host before they can spread - the reason I said earlier that high damage isn't really "efficient" for a virus. However, given the "long covid" symptoms that are currently being publicised, there is room for strains that last long enough to spread but still do significantly more damage than current strains, even without a high rate of rapid mortality.

The ivermectin situation is slightly more complicated than perhaps it would appear on first glance (assuming that it does actually work, which I haven't investigated). Ivermectin is a heavily used anti-parasitic. In various formulations it is used for everything from headlice in kids through to worms in dogs and cats. We buy it in 20litre drums to drench cattle and sheep, and the injectable version for cattle is 500ml for $90, with a dose rate of 1ml per 50kg animal weight, so assuming the same rate (based on nothing at all!)- a 100kg man would take a 36cent dose! This creates a few problems for the covid indication. Firstly, it is very hard to justify a great deal of expensive testing for a drug that is know to be dirt cheap - the pharmaceutical companies can't charge $hundreds a dose for something you can buy over the counter at your local rural supplier. If they globally raise the price of the active they will lose the agricultural sector, which is almost certainly a far bigger loss than anything they might make from covid treatments, and if they don't then they risk people taking animal drenches as a prophylactic. On a more light-hearted note, it might also call in to question many existing regulations, for example we cannot use ivermectin in animals within (from memory) 48 days of slaughter for human consumption - that would seem a strange requirement if people started taking it as a prophylactic for covid! I was talking to another farmer when Donald Trump started talking about ivermectin, and we were joking about all kinds of possibilities - perhaps farmers could pre-dose meat with ivermectin, like water is dosed with fluoride?..!

From memory, wasnt this why the CSIRO was enacted?

To pursue science for the people, rather than profit? They look into things like Ivermectin and other necessary things that Big Pharma refuses to?

Guess that's all been culled now.

Originally Posted by woodPixel

From memory, wasnt this why the CSIRO was enacted?

To pursue science for the people, rather than profit? They look into things like Ivermectin and other necessary things that Big Pharma refuses to?

Guess that's all been culled now.

WP

Government of the day decided it didn't like scientists very much and has gradually reduced funding to the CSIRO. One PM even found it unnecessary to appoint a science minister

Regards
Paul

Bah.....who needs science when you have......"thoughts and prayers"

The longer COVID remains in the community, the greater the chance of a new 'Epsilon' mutation (or some other more deadly/transmissible variant) popping up. And here we are struggling to deal with Delta.

Who needs scientists, who make decisions based on evidence and logic, when we have "experts" who rely on political expediency and looking good for the next election.

Originally Posted by Bohdan

Who needs scientists, who make decisions based on evidence and logic, when we have "experts" who rely on political expediency and looking good for the next election.

This is certainly part of it, but by no means the only reason. All government agencies are taxpayer funded, and whilst at times like these (or for certain industry sectors) we are very keen to have government agencies doing research, most people, most of the time, would rather have lower taxes. Very few people, if they are honest, want their hard earned pay being taken for things they have no interest in! So agencies like the CSIRO are run on tight budgets, to minimise costs. It is also quite hard for them to effectively monetise their research, because that involves production/manufacturing/marketing which are not in their remit, and also attracts the criticism that "my tax has paid for the research, why do I have to pay more for the results?".

In contrast, "business" can, when it desires, through money at something if they think it will be profitable. That includes staff salaries..... So whilst I have no doubt that there are some talented people in the CSIRO, the problem remains that the really talented people often get poached by big business. It takes a very dedicated person to turn down a doubling of their salary and the opportunity to have as much of the latest equipment as they need! This happens across the board, not just in science - governments (worldwide) tend to be at the low end of the pay scale for most job sectors, and therefore often lose their better staff to big business. That's always assuming that those talented people don't get picked up straight out of university by the corporate graduate recruitment programs.

The result of the above is that agencies like the CSIRO are often very good at doing "steady research" for sectors like agriculture, but perhaps not quite so successful in other areas. When they do have a success, more often than not it is then licensed or sold, so the credit goes to the manufacturer who brings it to market, and the taxpayer never knows what their money was used for..... So political expediency is to reduce that funding, reduce taxes etc. etc.

Rolled my sleeve up yesterday :
First of two jabs
Was only scared of one thing
That was the needle itself
Log Dog

Originally Posted by Warb

This is certainly part of it, but by no means the only reason. All government agencies are taxpayer funded, and whilst at times like these (or for certain industry sectors) we are very keen to have government agencies doing research, most people, most of the time, would rather have lower taxes. Very few people, if they are honest, want their hard earned pay being taken for things they have no interest in! So agencies like the CSIRO are run on tight budgets, to minimise costs. It is also quite hard for them to effectively monetise their research, because that involves production/manufacturing/marketing which are not in their remit, and also attracts the criticism that "my tax has paid for the research, why do I have to pay more for the results?".

Whilst I would have to agree that pressure and results are not a primary concern for such institutions as the CSIRO, I would expect, but don't know, they are increasingly having to justify their existence in the this commercial world. However, to say the government is reducing their funding because of taxpayer concerns I believe is exceeding generous towards the politicians and I don't see it as any more than a money grab for political expediency.

In this instance, as in Covid-19 times, the agency could have diverted attention to this pandemic if they had not had their structure so disabled. The argument against would be that it cost too much to keep things running for such an event: My comment would be can you afford not to do this? All hypothetical now, but very short sighted. I would also comment that we, as a group of people, are extremely self-centred and apparently are incapable of seeing a greater good. I can understand that attitude from people barely eeking out a living. I cannot accept that is the right attitude from people who are "comfortable."

Regards
Paul