Coronavirus. The n(in)th sequel.

[innonimatu]

I dont know how long covid induced immunity lasts, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a life time or longer. Maybe people who got covid before having kids will pass along some protection to them. Most people who got covid survived without serious issue, they got that immunity from their ancestors. Now what did I get wrong about the science?

It is an exceptionally dangerous vaccine, for vaccine standards - the ratio of side effects reported is orders of magnitude greater that for any other common vaccine in use today.

Gladys actually resigned about corruption related to the covid response, but my comment was meant to be that she unfortunately only resigned after doing the harm (and not, as you do say, for the actual harm she caused).

NZ giving up on controlling covid does leave me curious to finally see the effectiveness of the vaccines on a "virgin" population. Without the confounding factors of prior immunity and other strains. Because there are different numbers from different countries, the data has been a mess from a number of countries. But hopefully NZ can collect data.
But it's happening when they only have about half the population vaccinated. I do suppose they started with those more at risk. Have they really given up on controlling it, or are still mitigation efforts being kept (masks, etc)?

 

[Drakle]

It is an exceptionally dangerous vaccine, for vaccine standards - the ratio of side effects reported is orders of magnitude greater that for any other common vaccine in use today.

Gladys actually resigned about corruption related to the covid response, but my comment was meant to be that she unfortunately only resigned after doing the harm (and not, as you do say, for the actual harm she caused).

NZ giving up on controlling covid does leave me curious to finally see the effectiveness of the vaccines on a "virgin" population. Without the confounding factors of prior immunity and other strains. Because there are different numbers from different countries, the data has been a mess from a number of countries. But hopefully NZ can collect data.
But it's happening when they only have about half the population vaccinated. I do suppose they started with those more at risk. Have they really given up on controlling it, or are still mitigation efforts being kept (masks, etc)?

Wow you are just painfully wrong.

You mean VAERS which is completely open to any posting about side effects, and has been brigaded by anti vaxxers and trolls? Because you sure don't have real data.

And Gladys resigned due to a ICAC investigation into her, regarding her ex-MP boyfriend whose electorate she gave grants too, and supported his corrupt dealings. Not at all COVID related.

 

[Zardnaar]

13.8% unvaccinated locally.

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/jab-rates-among-best-hurdles-remain

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It is an exceptionally dangerous vaccine, for vaccine standards - the ratio of side effects reported is orders of magnitude greater that for any other common vaccine in use today.

Out of curiosity, are there any statistics to back this up?

 

[red_elk]

It won't work, it would be a mistake to attempt. Either people are persuaded that the vaccine is an advantage or they will refuse it, some violently so. And destabilize a whole country in the process, for no gain.

It did work, for a month. Most people are not persuaded in anything, they just don't care.

 

[Gorbles]

I have vaccine-hesitant people in my life who're at strong odds of dying because of the errors we've made during this. It's all academic. It's all political. It's all an intersection between politics, the actual underlying biology, and human factors. I can't control the biology or the politics, the best I can notice is the human factors. There have been a lot of errors made. We've definitely been underserved, despite partisan politics muddying the waters.

I have different conversations elsewhere, and this forum is a bit of an echo-chamber, but refusing to acknowledge natural immunity really is a potential problem. The science on it will actually be reasonably clear, relative to the value of any specific double-vax mandate, so it will mostly be a question as to whether it's perceived as goalposts shifting. The conversation will probably parallel boosters. Now, granted, when I say "potential problem", I'm also referring to the next pandemic we're going to bungle. We're also going to have conversations about where the burden of proof is.

On the back-end, the technical infrastructure to show a previous positive test as well as being able to show vaccination status is probably pretty tough to do, if only because they're different information silos, even if governed by similar institutions.

It's kind of ambiguous given how you put the sentence together, but are you claiming that people here are refusing to acknowledge natural immunity? If so, who?

As for "echo chambers", most communities by default are beholden to their own selection bias and are, generally, "echo chambers". The only way it couldn't be is the period of time in which a community is completely unmoderated, but even over time that will trend to a self-selection of people that prefer that environment. Hence, echo chamber. If you've noticed, I'm not a huge fan of the phrase. In this case it's because on the one hand you're trying to draw out the nuance in Covid-19 discourse, but on the other you're making sweeping statements without considering how communities got to the point of the sweeping statement in the first place

Also, this place really isn't an echo chamber. There are plenty of opposing voices at loggerheads, on a variety of topics including this one. Just because some voices belong to a larger group doesn't mean the opposing group isn't noticeable or proliferous in its own right.

But that's a tangent. When I say "academic", I mean the UK . . . I guess it's slang? I don't know how it's pervaded the Internet but it's pretty common in my anecdotal online experience. Anyhow. The UK slang that means "irrelevant to real life". Which catching Covid-19 most certainly isn't. Hopefully that helps you understand where I'm coming from better. People are pontificating on here, making up bad science, fabricating claims of danger (that aren't true and really could do with more people pushing back on) . . . this is academic. Telling people catching Covid is better for you than being vaccinated, that kind of nonsense. I didn't live through Covid in the early stages where reporting was messed up and my government was pretending it wasn't a problem to have people now - eighteen months later - talk against the need for vaccinations on a theoretical, untested notion of natural immunity. I'm not sitting here exhibiting symptoms of long Covid for the fun of it. It is to be avoided, and I can't make that any more emphatic than I have.

I don't presume I'm the only person on here to have gotten Covid, but I can guess without a doubt all the people advocating for natural immunity over a vaccine rollout, over boosters, over whatever, haven't. Because it's ideological. There's no data provided on the longevity of natural immunity. There's no demographical analysis of the natural immunity group vs. others (and the logistical impact on therefore prioritising boosters for different at-risk demographics). There's no science. It's purely ideological. Until such a time as I see these posters actually providing some kind of actual science, that judgement stands.

 

[The_J]

• Israel was quite successful in extinguishing new Delta wave, mostly because they used boosters which gave very good results.

mmhh.... I thought that the current pandemic situation down there is quite terrible right now, and they still have a big wave going on.

 

[red_elk]

mmhh.... I thought that the current pandemic situation down there is quite terrible right now, and they still have a big wave going on.

Worldometers show number of new cases significantly dropped, comparing to beginning of September.
Another good news is that deaths in UK remained quite low and started to decline last couple of weeks. It confirms vaccine effectiveness in preventing deaths.

 

[El_Machinae]

I can guess without a doubt all the people advocating for natural immunity over a vaccine rollout, over boosters, over whatever, haven't. Because it's ideological. There's no data provided on the longevity of natural immunity. There's no demographical analysis of the natural immunity group vs. others (and the logistical impact on therefore prioritising boosters for different at-risk demographics). There's no science. It's purely ideological. Until such a time as I see these posters actually providing some kind of actual science, that judgement stands.

But you'll notice the burden of proof, here? You're insisting that someone prove that they're safe rather than we prove that they're dangerous. With proper goalposts, the science is fundamentally the same, but the incentive to conduct the science shifts. And the zeitgeist controls the funding and the narrative. Given that bodily integrity is on the line AND given that public danger is on the line, you'd think that researching this stuff would be obvious to both sets of stakeholders. The hypothesis that natural infection (or types of natural infection) would be as good as the vaccine in preventing re-infection is sound. We would have to do real science to post-hoc explain why one was better than the other, I don't think either being a winner would be a surprise.

Honestly, at this stage, we should be running challenge trials on the two cohorts. There are some simple and obvious cohorts. Time-since-infection (plus severity of infection), time-since-vaccination (plus severity of side-effects),

Now, my goalposts would be "just show that you're statistically less dangerous than the least-effective (accepted) vaccine", although that's merely a practical application. If a variant comes out that overcomes the most effective vaccine, I'd expect lockdowns based on danger not on what was previously "good enough".

I've never had to dress-down anyone here about seeking natural immunity, that's conversations elsewhere.

I have some perspective on the nurses who are hesitant. When you're a nurse, you are constantly exposed to the faults in the system, where someone in authority forces you to shut up or even help hide some mistake further up the ladder. You have seen people misdiagnosed, mistreated, underserved, etc. your whole career. And, because we don't have a proper safety net, they actually do have to choose about whether to shut up or not. It's literally the same reason why good cops cannot really stand their ground against bad cops, they cannot afford to (or think they can't).

I have zero problem with mandates (I've likened it to conscription earlier, where just sometimes it's necessary), but any region that doesn't factor in natural immunity (and failing to research it is the same thing) is going to have a huge problem with appearing to be 'anti-science'. Top that off with bad incentives to get tested and the fact that some people want to mandate vaccinations of financially vulnerable people or minorities, and there's a huge landmine.

mmhh.... I thought that the current pandemic situation down there is quite terrible right now, and they still have a big wave going on.

"Big" will be relative, but they definitely got an explosion of cases that surprised a lot of people. I like to compare Sweden to Israel, because the population sizes are similar and both did something 'unusual' in the covid-19 response.

I think it's pretty obvious looking at the numbers that their cases are coming down, but they'd passed Sweden for at least a bit recently (in total cases). They're pretty good evidence for the booster being useful.

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/israel?country=ISR~SWE

 

[Arwon]

We're at about 94% first dose coverage of over 12s and still rising. Second doses are going at over 1% a day, so should have those second doses done by the end of the month. Then we'll be, I imagine, one of the most vaccinated places on the planet.

Cases at about 30 to 50 a day now in a population of just under half a million. Lockdown ends next Friday and I can't wait to go to the pub and for raw case numbers to largely stop mattering. And for travel with NSW and Vic to open.

 

[El_Machinae]

Sweet golly. That's going to be a heck of a data-set that will be super-duper useful for retrospective analysis.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I have zero problem with mandates (I've likened it to conscription earlier, where just sometimes it's necessary)

Similar to conscription, there is going to be a line drawn somewhere with regards to how much is required for it to be "necessary". Although I'm open to new evidence, it doesn't appear COVID vaccine mandates will hold up to strict legal scrutiny on the merits. Reasons being that the vaccinated are relatively safe from the disease, and the difficulty of demonstrating unvaccinated asymptomatic spread vs vaccinated asymptomatic/weak symptom spread (the former has to be empirically shown to be significantly worse for the "compelling public interest" check to work).

Right now, mandates are sometimes ignoring religious and prior-contraction exceptions, and ignoring either of those puts mandates in legal trouble too, for different reasons (strict scrutiny vs legitimacy of public interest vs evidence/balance of risk).

 

[Drakle]

So anti-vaccine mandate protesters in New York attacked a COVID testing spot, police did nothing to stop them, and then they protested in front of the Australian embassy. Apparently, Australia is a dictatorship. I think we are actually doing fine.

But back to the attacking testing spot. Really exposes how a lot of anti mandate people, are just anti-everything, which means pro-death. They aren't pro-freedom, they are literally preventing others from exercising their freedom to get tested. They are selfish monsters. Who the police let get away with stuff, after spending months aggressively kettling and attacking peaceful protesters.

Similar to conscription, there is going to be a line drawn somewhere with regards to how much is required for it to be "necessary". Although I'm open to new evidence, it doesn't appear COVID vaccine mandates will hold up to strict legal scrutiny on the merits. Reasons being that the vaccinated are relatively safe from the disease, and the difficulty of demonstrating unvaccinated asymptomatic spread vs vaccinated asymptomatic/weak symptom spread (the former has to be empirically shown to be significantly worse for the "compelling public interest" check to work).

Right now, mandates are sometimes ignoring religious and prior-contraction exceptions, and ignoring either of those puts mandates in legal trouble too, for different reasons (strict scrutiny vs legitimacy of public interest vs evidence/balance of risk).

Do you get you mind-wiped after every post? You and the rest keep making the same posts over and over again.

COVID has killed more than any military casualties from any American conflict. Only the highest total estimates for the Civil war are higher, and those are surpassed by the excess deaths from Covid calcuation. You don't think that rises to a necessary level?

And you are so wrong on the legal merits. You clearly have no legal training or education, or insane partisanship is overriding legal knowledge. Or the ability to follow the news or parse posts. Vaccine mandates have been settled case law for over a century. And judges are following that as the anti-vaxxers try futility anyway. (1) (2) (3) (4). Knocked back at literally every point. But sure, your spurious argument will totally break through. Why not hire a lawyer and see how you go?

 

[Lexicus]

Right now, mandates are sometimes ignoring religious and prior-contraction exceptions, and ignoring either of those puts mandates in legal trouble too, for different reasons (strict scrutiny vs legitimacy of public interest vs evidence/balance of risk).

For the record, there is no such thing as a religious exemption to a vaccination mandate. The Jehovah's Witnesses around here are sponsoring vaccination drives. If the Jehovah's Witnesses are sponsoring vaccination drives, there's not a religion on the face of the earth that has any real theological objection to the covid-19 vaccine, period.

 

[Zelig]

Right now, mandates are sometimes ignoring religious and prior-contraction exceptions, and ignoring either of those puts mandates in legal trouble too, for different reasons (strict scrutiny vs legitimacy of public interest vs evidence/balance of risk).

If your "religion" forbids you from being vaccinated, that's not a religion, that's a cult.

 

[Lexicus]

And judges are following that as the anti-vaxxers try futility anyway. (1) (2) (3) (4).

Otoh, it will be 'interesting' to see whether the right-wing supreme court goes along with the settled case law or if it decides to intervene...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If your "religion" forbids you from being vaccinated, that's not a religion, that's a cult.

I am atheist, but my understanding is that some are complaining about fetal cell usage (or more accurately, lines descended from fetal cells) in the research/production of the vaccines, which seems to be something that was actually done from what I can tell (at least, government websites don't disagree with the claim: http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/me...vaccine/VaccineDevelopment_FetalCellLines.pdf for example).

The origin is still fetal tissue, though. So if someone rejects taking the vaccine on this basis, and you try saying exactly what you just said as an employer in the US, you are asking to get sued into the ground. Businesses have not had much luck deciding what is or isn't valid in terms of religious belief in this kind of context.

 

[El_Machinae]

Similar to conscription, there is going to be a line drawn somewhere with regards to how much is required for it to be "necessary". Although I'm open to new evidence, it doesn't appear COVID vaccine mandates will hold up to strict legal scrutiny on the merits.

That will be specific to the jurisdiction and also the population that's getting the mandate. In regions that can expect an overwhelming of the healthcare system, then we have a vested interested in keeping total case numbers down. Right now, we have a 'tolerable but stressful' number of vaccinated people in the ICU (a multiple of what we see from regular respiratory infection, but within our affordability) and a completely overwhelming number of unvaccinated people destroying our healthcare capacity. We're trading some 'freedom' for public infrastructure. If we flip conscription, we're forcing some vaccinated people to die and people get their surgeries delayed in the name of 'freedom', currently.

We're in a pseudo-lockdown, where the vaccinated have more exemptions compared to the unvaccinated. They're obviously allowed to catch Delta if they want to, but they're just not allowed to right now, but should wait their turn.

edit: anecdotally, I think Novavax is being forwarded in the Evangelical community as being 'abortion free'. I'm waiting to hear more rumours from that community, but I suspect it's going to be the vaccine that let's them overcome their dissonance (their reasons won't be logical, it's going to be 100% dissonance). And I'll put money on that wager.

After that, it will be hesitation in communities that have actual reason to distrust authority. I'm not sure about the level of bleed-over in their antivax information

 

[Drakle]

The fetal line cell is bullfeathers. There has never been a movement against these very common medicines.

The list is very longer, and also includes Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. And if you get treated for covid, you will almost certainly get Remdesivir. It's most of modern medicine.

The Pope also said to get it, so if you are a Catholic and trying to not get it, you are a heretic. Evangelicals of course are their own bag of snakes.

Otoh, it will be 'interesting' to see whether the right-wing supreme court goes along with the settled case law or if it decides to intervene...

I think they won't pick it up, or they might just widen the religious exemption. Barrett already knocked back one, the Liberals won't go for it of course, and the other conservatives are likely smart enough to not kill their voters, unlike the elected ones.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That will be specific to the jurisdiction and also the population that's getting the mandate. In regions that can expect an overwhelming of the healthcare system, then we have a vested interested in keeping total case numbers down. Right now, we have a 'tolerable but stressful' number of vaccinated people in the ICU (a multiple of what we see from regular respiratory infection, but within our affordability) and a completely overwhelming number of unvaccinated people destroying our healthcare capacity. We're trading some 'freedom' for public infrastructure. If we flip conscription, we're forcing some vaccinated people to die and people get their surgeries delayed in the name of 'freedom', currently.

If the numbers in an area bear this out (and aren't a result of firing hospital staff), there is some rationale for it, though I wonder if it wouldn't be better served by turning away overage on unvaccinated rather than mandating. This still leaves the choice in their hands, without a conscription equivalent.

I would want a more recent snapshot of something like this though: https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/covid19/report-patient-impact.html, and to constrain mandate to approved vaccines.

I was also under the impression that hospitalization rate for vaccinated was tiny. Is that not true? If it isn't, and they are also not meaningfully slowing transmission rate, a mandate would have a hard time for different reasons.