Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) (SARS-CoV-2) [2020]

[Shifty Geezer]

Looks like the flu still doesn't need it's own thread. Feel free to refute with data...

'Mike drop' statements like this are antagonistic. The presentation of factual data doesn't necessarily mean winning the argument simply because one has data that supports a perspective. Please present your argument and then welcome challenges to it. If your data is right, the challenge will fail, but you can only prove it right once challenged!

So we need, on average, 17 years of cumulative pneumonia and influenza deaths to equal the three years of COVID deaths seen in the United States.

The initial impact of C19 was significant as it was a novel disease. As time progresses, we expect (and are currently seeing) SARS-CoV-2 to become background fauna the same as the other disease with far less impact, at which point we can compare them, and at which point C19 probably doesn't need to be discussed as a disease.

That's where Nesh thinks we are, but he's comparing estimates with actual recordings of low-monitoring C19 deaths. I don't think those sources are particularly robust. eg. Where low income countries contribute most to flu deaths included in estimates, those same countries aren't providing accurate C19 death figures included in the actual C19 death counts which are likely under-counted. For comparison, my data is exact from the UK's Health Authority.

Flu


C19


C19 deaths are currently 'low', but more people died of C19 over 'Christmas' than died of Flu in the whole of 2012 or 2014. If we ignore the historical 2023 data which includes far more deaths from more serious 'strains' (lack of immunological resistance, etc), and instead extrapolate these late 2023 figures, 20 deaths a day for 365 days, around 7500 deaths per year for C19 versus ~1500 for flu; more typically 500 deaths a year making C19 an order of magnitude more serious, and that's only counting deaths.

But those death figures aren't what this discussion is really about. SARS-CoV-2 was a novel virus, one humanity had never experienced before. It has a lot to teach us and that discussion is still ongoing. It shouldn't be swept under the carpet as a done thing now because the lessons still need to be learnt, including lots of analysis opportunities, and the Long Covid situation which may actually shed light on other disease reactions we missed and left unexplained.

A discussion on flu has nothing to add here. I mean, l there's nothing stopping Nesh from starting one if he wants, but I for one won't be following it because I don't think there's any value in it. "General background disease" isn't that important. "Pandemic killing millions per year" is. I'll be following those Pandemic conversations when they happen regardless of the underlying pathogen strain, but I won't be reading any everyday disease thread.

 

[Nesh]

It's nothing to do with the particular strain of Covid (the current dominant variants are enormously more infectious than the original virus out of Wuhan). It's about immunity. Most people have been vaccinated or infected (generally both) since 2020 and this has provided substantial immunity against the most serious infection. However, the lot of people are still dying from the virus, often needlessly and there are significant numbers of people suffering with 'Long Covid', which we assume is auto-immune related. We know that air filtration works very well to reduce all infectious diseases (including the flu), but nobody is trying to implement such technology in most public areas.

There is fear of a flu pandemic of the 'Spanish flu' type but, other than surveillance, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of preparations going on for such an event. And, of course, it is perfectly possible that a variant of Covid will evolve which could overcome our current immunity.

Thankfully, the scientists are still working on improved vaccines, but that's pretty much all that anybody is doing.

Governments have learned very little from the Covid pandemic. My 5 year old daughter has had Covid a couple of times and wasn't poorly on either occasion, but she's never had a vaccine, because they aren't available to the young in the UK any longer. Hopefully, her current immunity will continue to protect her.

I'm over 50 now and haven't had a booster for a couple of years (though it was extremely mild on the two occasions I developed it).

However, I'd imagine I'll be offered one in due course as I've just been diagnosed with a type of epilepsy. Seems strange to develop that in your second decade, but it does happen. Caused by my past mild Covid infections, perhaps? Might even be down to my first vaccination which was the AZ jab as I did have persistent headaches after that!

Anyway, Covid is still a very serious problem for the most vulnerable and we shouldn't be pretending it isn't. Those with compromised immunity are met with a shrug and left to their own devices.

I was referring to variant when I said strain. Probably a misuse of word or means the same. No matter.

Yes it is more infectious but with less severe effects compared to the original one. It is a combination of both immunity and the current variant. The same for any pandemic in human history, including influenza.

It is the nature of viruses unfortunately to needlessly cause deaths. They are hard to monitor and what covid has taught us, is our inability to properly handle a pandemic of a new virus our bodies are not familiar with, once it appears.

Fortunately covid has entered a face, wether we call it variant or immunity, where it is no longer as deadly as it was the first two years but it still kills highly sensitive groups. But that's why it is important to monitor both influenza and covid as both are causing needless deaths.

I also got covid, certainly once, and I am sure a lot more I haven't even realized. My whole family got it, including my mother who is diabetic and has heart and kidney problems.

 

[Nesh]

'Mike drop' statements like this are antagonistic. The presentation of factual data doesn't necessarily mean winning the argument simply because one has data that supports a perspective. Please present your argument and then welcome challenges to it. If your data is right, the challenge will fail, but you can only prove it right once challenged!

The initial impact of C19 was significant as it was a novel disease. As time progresses, we expect (and are currently seeing) SARS-CoV-2 to become background fauna the same as the other disease with far less impact, at which point we can compare them, and at which point C19 probably doesn't need to be discussed as a disease.

That's where Nesh thinks we are, but he's comparing estimates with actual recordings of low-monitoring C19 deaths. I don't think those sources are particularly robust. eg. Where low income countries contribute most to flu deaths included in estimates, those same countries aren't providing accurate C19 death figures included in the actual C19 death counts which are likely under-counted. For comparison, my data is exact from the UK's Health Authority.

Flu
View attachment 10667

C19
View attachment 10668

C19 deaths are currently 'low', but more people died of C19 over 'Christmas' than died of Flu in the whole of 2012 or 2014. If we ignore the historical 2023 data which includes far more deaths from more serious 'strains' (lack of immunological resistance, etc), and instead extrapolate these late 2023 figures, 20 deaths a day for 365 days, around 7500 deaths per year for C19 versus ~1500 for flu; more typically 500 deaths a year making C19 an order of magnitude more serious, and that's only counting deaths.

But those death figures aren't what this discussion is really about. SARS-CoV-2 was a novel virus, one humanity had never experienced before. It has a lot to teach us and that discussion is still ongoing. It shouldn't be swept under the carpet as a done thing now because the lessons still need to be learnt, including lots of analysis opportunities, and the Long Covid situation which may actually shed light on other disease reactions we missed and left unexplained.

A discussion on flu has nothing to add here. I mean, l there's nothing stopping Nesh from starting one if he wants, but I for one won't be following it because I don't think there's any value in it. "General background disease" isn't that important. "Pandemic killing millions per year" is. I'll be following those Pandemic conversations when they happen regardless of the underlying pathogen strain, but I won't be reading any everyday disease thread.

This is the kind of discussion I want with proper arguments, proper use of data and care of sharing.
Not discussions driven by assumptions due to ideology and emotions with the aim of winning at all costs, even to the point of misusing data and deliberately misreading, to prove said assumption correct.
When I sense such attitude the point of the discussion becomes futile and I don't want to participate.

 

[Nesh]

Oh and btw my point wasn't to downplay covid. My point was that we were possibly downplaying influenza and monitoring both might have given us a clue about how we are handling or mishandling two potentially similar situations that are causing deaths to high risk groups by comparing them.

 

[pharma]

C19 deaths are currently 'low', but more people died of C19 over 'Christmas' than died of Flu in the whole of 2012 or 2014. If we ignore the historical 2023 data which includes far more deaths from more serious 'strains' (lack of immunological resistance, etc), and instead extrapolate these late 2023 figures, 20 deaths a day for 365 days, around 7500 deaths per year for C19 versus ~1500 for flu; more typically 500 deaths a year making C19 an order of magnitude more serious, and that's only counting deaths.

It seems there is variation C19 vs Influenza deaths, at least on a weekly basis in the UK. Based on the following report a significant difference between C19 vs Influenza deaths for the second week of January 2024, with the assumption this report can be considered a valid source. It might indicate a seasonal factor is present as well.

In the week ending 12 January 2024 (Week 2), 13,710 deaths were registered in England and Wales (including non-residents), an increase in all deaths compared with the week ending 5 January 2024 (Week 1), when the number of deaths registered was 11,947; week 1 was affected by the New Year's bank holiday.

In the week ending 12 January 2024 (Week 2), 17.7% of deaths registered involved influenza or pneumonia (2,425 deaths), while 2.8% involved coronavirus (COVID-19) (388 deaths).

Of deaths registered in the week ending 12 January 2024 (Week 2), 40.5% occurred within the previous seven days; median time from death to registration was eight days.

Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional - Office for National Statistics

Provisional number of deaths registered in England and Wales in the latest weeks.

www.ons.gov.uk

 

[Mariner]

Paul Mainwood has always provided good commentary on Covid in the UK (and comparison to other respiratory diseases):

Is COVID now just another winter virus?

It’s certainly closer than it was. In hospitalisation terms - i.e., a direct pressure on the NHS - then we can use SARI-watch data plot its transition from its spectacular arrival in the UK to its current state, along with the previous few years’ flu waves.

paulmainwood.substack.com

Basically, saying the same as most of us. It's still dangerous and we're not sure what will happen in the future, but things are obviously much, much better than during the first few years of the pandemic!

 

[entity279]

If you don't get vaccinated and get the disease, or choose not to wear a mask, you can pass it on to someone else. It's not just about your health but the health of those around you. That has of course been true of every other disease prior to C19 though. The immunocompromised have to deal with rhinovirus and adenovirus as deadly threats where the rest of the population is walking around with these ever present, spreading the viruses everywhere.

But covid vaccination does not prevent one to get the disease, nor to transmit it, by any meaningful measure. Flu vaccine as well, same situation.

I did sadly believe it would help stop transmission too, in early 2021 when i got my shots. As the media were suggesting it and because the word "vaccine" has been used for this injection and I probably many others, are use to the word meaning it "stops us from getting the disease"

 

[Nesh]

But covid vaccination does not prevent one to get the disease, nor to transmit it, by any meaningful measure. Flu vaccine as well, same situation.

I did sadly believe it would help stop transmission too, in early 2021 when i got my shots. As the media were suggesting it and because the word "vaccine" has been used for this injection and I probably many others, are use to the word meaning it "stops us from getting the disease"

One of the stupidest measures in some countries was to force unvaccinated to take rapid tests to go to work or go to a supermarket, whilst they did not demand from the vaccinated to take any.
The vaccinated weren't taking any personal responsibility to check if they did have covid, ending up transmitting the disease to the unvaccinated who were doing rapid tests to go anywhere. Basically the unvaccinated at some point were safer for others than the vaccinated were, because they were testing for negativity to roam around

 

[wco81]

There are several nasal vaccines being researched and in development, some have reached clinical trials.

Biden administration had to scrape up funding because GOP Congress won't fund new covid vaccine development.

In April, the United States government announced and, subsequently in August ,published in NEJM Project NextGen: “This $5 billion investment will focus on three main areas: vaccines that provide broader immunity both against new SARS-CoV-2 variants and across the family of epidemic-prone sarbecoviruses, vaccines that generate effective mucosal immunity to block infection and transmission, and monoclonal antibodies that can weather viral evolution and serve as a basis for our arsenal against new threats from betacoronaviruses.”

On October 13th, the HHS announced funding for Codagenix and Castlevax, initially for $10 million and $8.5 million respectively, but after achieving milestones up to $389 million each. The goal of funding is to accelerate clinical development for large trials of 10,000 participants—as soon as possible—who had mRNA shots and receive these nasal vaccines as a booster. Due to lack of Congressional support, it took a long time to establish Project NextGen, and once formed time to select the programs/companies with best prospects for acceleration of nasal vaccines. Finally, we’re seeing it happen and it’s certainly good news. And whatever comes from the investments will very likely be helpful for future pandemics.

One of the nasal vaccines which received this funding had shown some good Phase 1 trial results:

The actual results were presented by the investigators at the meeting, summarized as follows: “After 2 doses of CoviLiv, all participants exceeded a 2-fold increase in spike-specific IgG with a geometric mean fold rise of 19.5 (95% CI 3.4-113.8) on day 57. Neutralizing antibodies at this timepoint were induced 2.6-fold (CI 1.0-7.0) and 4.9-fold (CI 1.4-16.6). On day 36 post-vaccination, IFNγ response increased 4.5-fold (CI 2.8-7.4) in the 2-dose cohort and 2.5-fold (CI 1.4-4.2) in the 1-dose cohort.”

Covid Nasal Vaccines Get A Boost

Facts, data, and analytics about biomedical matters.

erictopol.substack.com

The reality though is that Republicans will try to block funding for research, which would have a lot of scientific value alone (in our understanding of virology, immunology, etc.) as well as aid in future pandemics, but the general public are complacent and indifferent to the covid threat.

As I posted above, millions will get flu shots but not covid, because it's probably some form of denial going on.

 

[Flappy Pannus]

But covid vaccination does not prevent one to get the disease, nor to transmit it, by any meaningful measure. Flu vaccine as well, same situation.

I did sadly believe it would help stop transmission too, in early 2021 when i got my shots. As the media were suggesting it and because the word "vaccine" has been used for this injection and I probably many others, are use to the word meaning it "stops us from getting the disease"

To an extent, it did:

Vaccination and prior infection reduced susceptibility and infectiousness. The extent to which they did, decreased over time and was affected by the dominant VOC. Delta increased both susceptibility and infectiousness after breakthrough infection, but the latter effect was largest. Omicron further increased infectiousness, but in contrast to Delta, its main immune-escape was associated with susceptibility. Susceptibility after primary-vaccination or prior infection only, remained high for Omicron. A higher number of antigen-exposures, either through booster-vaccination or hybrid immunity, improved protection. In conclusion, we report significant VET-estimates for SARS-CoV-2-infection during a period of Alpha, Delta and Omicron-dominance (January 2021 to January 2022).

The effectiveness against transmission waned because the virus had continued to mutate. When the vaccines first dropped, the strain they were specifically targeting were indeed hampered in transmission. The virus you're fighting now is different than the one we were fighting then.

The main benefit of being vaccinated now is to decrease your viral load and the severity of the infection, which is extremely valuable and perhaps that message wasn't communicated as clear as it could have been early on. But while relatively brief, it did have a period of reducing transmission too.

 

[wco81]

Yeah and decreasing the viral load probably helped slow transmission but later variants appear to be able to infect without as high a viral load.

There was one video, around the time of Omicron or maybe Delta, where this person is said to have gotten infected just passing by someone else, not from lingering for 20 minutes or more in some enclosed space.

 

[tuna]

Governments have learned very little from the Covid pandemic. My 5 year old daughter has had Covid a couple of times and wasn't poorly on either occasion, but she's never had a vaccine, because they aren't available to the young in the UK any longer. Hopefully, her current immunity will continue to protect her.

You kind of answered yourself why kids that young don't get a Covid vaccine.

(It is pretty pointless, they don't get that sick anyway in the general case.)

 

[wco81]

Even if they don't get sick, you don't know how the virus has spread internally.

Maybe with their developing organs, the potential long-term impact is much less than in adults.

Or their immune system just clears up the virus quickly.


Kids of course spread the virus even if it doesn't make them sick.

 

[Nesh]

Even if they don't get sick, you don't know how the virus has spread internally.

Maybe with their developing organs, the potential long-term impact is much less than in adults.

Or their immune system just clears up the virus quickly.


Kids of course spread the virus even if it doesn't make them sick.

Many doctors don't advise giving kids the vaccine unless they are in high risk groups. And it appears that this advise varies according to region. WHO doesn't consider it a necessity, except for kids in high risk groups. The health benefits are minimal for children and is recommended for benefits unrelated to health (ie disruption of education and minimizing potential discomforts), or to minimize transmission from kids to adults, which according to WHO, since the Omicron variant the vaccine hasn't been very effective in doing that.

Knowing cases myself where the vaccines did have serious side effects (myocarditis among others), I wouldn't have given any to kids unless there is high necessity due to current health issues. It is pointless to act based on loose "what ifs" scenarios as they are infinite. AFAIK there are no data that demonstrate the appearance of effects of covid infection on kids who don't get sick in the long run.

Of all my friends and relatives kids that got covid and had symptoms they recovered with no further side effects. Statistically speaking, considering we are billions, there should be outliers somewhere of course.

The potential unknowns of the vaccine's effect on kids in the long term should also be considered.

 

[Mariner]

You kind of answered yourself why kids that young don't get a Covid vaccine.

(It is pretty pointless, they don't get that sick anyway in the general case.)

Apart from the ones that do. Some kids develop organ damage from severe infections and more go on to develop Long Covid symptoms. Most kids with measles recover well, but we vaccinate against that to prevent these harms. Why should Covid be any different?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Apart from the ones that do. Some kids develop organ damage from severe infections and more go on to develop Long Covid symptoms. Most kids with measles recover well, but we vaccinate against that to prevent these harms. Why should Covid be any different?

I think suspicions around the current vaccines in part, which has been somewhat proven justified since we've learnt how they haven't been as thoroughly tested as other vaccines and there are some unknowns surrounding their novel vaccine strategy. I think it prudent to scale back the vaccination while mRNA vaccines are investigated more to learn the ins and outs now that the majority of Covid risks are diminished. If it were up to me, I'd see about creating mRNA vaccines for other disease we already have vaccines for and comparing them. And/or developing traditional vaccines (or alternatives like nasals) to Covid while mRNA vaccines have ongoing evaluation.

 

[Mariner]

I'm not sure that there have been any indications that mRNA vaccines actually have any serious harms - once you ignore the Covid-denier groups who, of course, who do a dumpster dive into VAERS/Yellow Card reports and try to blame anything that happens to anybody on the vaccines. I remember there were indications of a risk of mild carditis in adults - but much less of a risk than being unvaccinated and contracting Covid. Not sure if similar risks occur in children, but I've not seen any reporting of it.

That's a point, we know the AZ adenovirus vaccine had rare side-effects, so I wonder if other adenovirus vaccines are still being developed, or has the apparent success of mRNA taken over in most fields?

I know we're waiting for the nasal vaccines as well, so fingers-crossed they will pan out as hoped.

 

[wco81]

I think suspicions around the current vaccines in part, which has been somewhat proven justified since we've learnt how they haven't been as thoroughly tested as other vaccines and there are some unknowns surrounding their novel vaccine strategy. I think it prudent to scale back the vaccination while mRNA vaccines are investigated more to learn the ins and outs now that the majority of Covid risks are diminished. If it were up to me, I'd see about creating mRNA vaccines for other disease we already have vaccines for and comparing them. And/or developing traditional vaccines (or alternatives like nasals) to Covid while mRNA vaccines have ongoing evaluation.

Well Moderna's research into mRNA was for the purpose of producing cancer vaccines using the technology.

Some recent news about that:

An experimental messenger RNA cancer vaccine developed by Moderna (MRNA.O), opens new taband Merck & Co (MRK.N), opens new tab paired with Merck's Keytruda cut the chance of recurrence or death from melanoma by half after three years, showing that benefits demonstrated a year ago have held up over time.

Moderna shares rose 11% in morning trading after having fallen 50% this year due to waning demand for COVID vaccines and questions about how well its mRNA influenza shot works compared to the current standard and whether the cancer vaccine will be successful. Two analysts said this data was a positive but incremental step.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/benefits-moderna-merck-melanoma-vaccine-plus-keytruda-extend-three-years-2023-12-14/

One good, aside from the covid vaccine probably saving millions of lives, is that it will give funding for Moderna and other companies on these cancer vaccines, both R&D and running trials.

 

[Mariner]

And let's hope the misinformation from the Covid-deniers doesn't impact the take up of other, life-saving vaccines:

No cervical cancer cases in fully HPV-vaccinated women in Scotland

A study published by Public Health Scotland finds that the HPV vaccine is "highly effective".

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Bludd]

And let's hope the misinformation from the Covid-deniers doesn't impact the take up of other, life-saving vaccines:

No cervical cancer cases in fully HPV-vaccinated women in Scotland

A study published by Public Health Scotland finds that the HPV vaccine is "highly effective".

www.bbc.co.uk

arent the main people (outside antivaxxers) that are against the hpv vaccinations evangelists who equate the hpv vaccine with sexual promiscuity?