The big Coronavirus thread

DeVlaeminck

kingstongraham said:

Ncovidius said:

john80 said:

Parents need to have that honest conversation with their kids and put the reasoning to them. This reasoning is that this jab is about as safe as it introduces risk and the real reason they are doing it is to protect others. Some will care about this and some will not.

I personally think that there won’t be a huge amount of point in vaccinating the youngest age groups, as ( despite the protestations coming from some corners ) the data seems to indicate that the vaccines aren’t fully sanitising, so the youngest groups can still carry the infection, whether jabbed or not. The effect of reducing seriousness of illness ( which are the vaccines biggest achievement) don’t really apply to the youngest groups, as they tend not to get as seriously ill, with the same viral load as ( especially the over 80s and C.E.V. groups ). However I’m all for encouraging the younger groups to get vacced, as it could help reduce any possibility of new variants emerging.

Given what you said above it - is there evidence for this?

Presumably just that a lower level of virus circulating means fewer opportunities for mutation ?

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15

Although it states here that the benefits are insufficiently greater than the risks. So slightly different to my original statement. Although it affects boys more, so it may be that for boys the risks are greater than the benefits.

'Benefits insufficiently greater than risks' is definitely not the same as 'risks greater than benefits'. They also stated that they didn't consider the wider implications of reduced infections in that cohort and the wider population. I would suggest these are quite big things to leave out.

I expanded on this in subsequent posts. Ultimately both are tiny and I was more interested in what parents were planning to do rather than the incessant Cake Stop point scoring.

I guess when the direct benefits are quite marginal it's inevitable that this will be reported poorly. I think it's fair to say that it's not going to make much difference to most 12-15 year olds on a direct personal level. I think the wider benefits of not having their whole year group sent home/teachers off sick/other family members ill, plus the reduced spread for the population as a whole, swings the argument very much in favour of vaccination.

That's exactly what the government have said; however, I thought year groups were no longer going to be sent home. Also, the same argument can be applied to chickenpox. The key difference between the two is vaccinating for covid and not vaccinating for chickenpox are both considered to be favourable for the rest of society - and I think this is what drives both decisions.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15

Although it states here that the benefits are insufficiently greater than the risks. So slightly different to my original statement. Although it affects boys more, so it may be that for boys the risks are greater than the benefits.

'Benefits insufficiently greater than risks' is definitely not the same as 'risks greater than benefits'. They also stated that they didn't consider the wider implications of reduced infections in that cohort and the wider population. I would suggest these are quite big things to leave out.

I expanded on this in subsequent posts. Ultimately both are tiny and I was more interested in what parents were planning to do rather than the incessant Cake Stop point scoring.

I guess when the direct benefits are quite marginal it's inevitable that this will be reported poorly. I think it's fair to say that it's not going to make much difference to most 12-15 year olds on a direct personal level. I think the wider benefits of not having their whole year group sent home/teachers off sick/other family members ill, plus the reduced spread for the population as a whole, swings the argument very much in favour of vaccination.

That's exactly what the government have said; however, I thought year groups were no longer going to be sent home. Also, the same argument can be applied to chickenpox. The key difference between the two is vaccinating for covid and not vaccinating for chickenpox are both considered to be favourable for the rest of society - and I think this is what drives both decisions.

Having seen how ill my youngest was with chickenpox, with hindsight I probably would have got them both vaccinated if offered.

mully79

Most mutations happen in people who are immunosuppressed etc. ie the virus can stay in their bodies for longer to learn to evade treatments/vaccines etc.

if more people have the virus then someone who is going to cause a mutation is more likely to catch it.

tailwindhome

https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1437795456759783429?s=20

Ncovidius

kingstongraham said:

Ncovidius said:

john80 said:

Parents need to have that honest conversation with their kids and put the reasoning to them. This reasoning is that this jab is about as safe as it introduces risk and the real reason they are doing it is to protect others. Some will care about this and some will not.

I personally think that there won’t be a huge amount of point in vaccinating the youngest age groups, as ( despite the protestations coming from some corners ) the data seems to indicate that the vaccines aren’t fully sanitising, so the youngest groups can still carry the infection, whether jabbed or not. The effect of reducing seriousness of illness ( which are the vaccines biggest achievement) don’t really apply to the youngest groups, as they tend not to get as seriously ill, with the same viral load as ( especially the over 80s and C.E.V. groups ). However I’m all for encouraging the younger groups to get vacced, as it could help reduce any possibility of new variants emerging.

Given what you said above it - is there evidence for this?

Yes. Coronaviruses have the ability to ‘quality control’ themselves. If there are significant ‘errors’ upon replication, they are known to have the ability to modify themselves back to the previous versions for future iterations. The reason for the emergence of the variants of concern, is because of the sheer amount of virus in circulation, meaning that by the time the original version has done it’s quality control, the new variant of concern has already established itself, and if that’s more easily transmitted, and ( usually) less deadly to the host, it becomes the dominant variant, by default. If there’s an increased amount of people with enough protection to at least reduce their viral load, the chances of new variants emerging reduce, simply because there isn’t enough ‘error virus’ around to evade the natural ability of Corona viruses to sort out any errors, quickly enough to get a foothold in the population. The vaccines aren’t fully sanitising, but they do put a metaphorical stick in the spokes of the coronavirus’s wheels.

pangolin

orraloon

I keep remembering the episode of More or Less: Behind the Stats which estimated the total physical volume of the C-virus in the world. 175ml is the number I recall. One helluva glass of wine that.

pangolin

orraloon said:

I keep remembering the episode of More or Less: Behind the Stats which estimated the total physical volume of the C-virus in the world. 175ml is the number I recall. One helluva glass of wine that.

Would it be liquid? What would it look like?

briantrumpet

Most of the time I'm of the opinion that that ability to use spoken and written language to convey the most complex ideas is one of the greatest wonders of the entire universe.

Most of the time.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15

Although it states here that the benefits are insufficiently greater than the risks. So slightly different to my original statement. Although it affects boys more, so it may be that for boys the risks are greater than the benefits.

'Benefits insufficiently greater than risks' is definitely not the same as 'risks greater than benefits'. They also stated that they didn't consider the wider implications of reduced infections in that cohort and the wider population. I would suggest these are quite big things to leave out.

I expanded on this in subsequent posts. Ultimately both are tiny and I was more interested in what parents were planning to do rather than the incessant Cake Stop point scoring.

I guess when the direct benefits are quite marginal it's inevitable that this will be reported poorly. I think it's fair to say that it's not going to make much difference to most 12-15 year olds on a direct personal level. I think the wider benefits of not having their whole year group sent home/teachers off sick/other family members ill, plus the reduced spread for the population as a whole, swings the argument very much in favour of vaccination.

That's exactly what the government have said; however, I thought year groups were no longer going to be sent home. Also, the same argument can be applied to chickenpox. The key difference between the two is vaccinating for covid and not vaccinating for chickenpox are both considered to be favourable for the rest of society - and I think this is what drives both decisions.

Having seen how ill my youngest was with chickenpox, with hindsight I probably would have got them both vaccinated if offered.

This is a useful reminder that I need to get my youngest done.

shirley_basso

Re the CP vaccine - 1) below is corroborated on NHS website.

1) As kids won't have had CP, they won't have protection from shingles when older

2) (I think) Kids getting CP also strengthens the parents immune system from getting shingles

As far as I am aware, shingles is worse than CP. Luckily not had it

Ncovidius

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-visual-guide-to-the-sars-cov-2-coronavirus/

This is very good indeed, well worth a read.

A key bit of info from the article, which helps explain my earlier point about why it’s important to keep the amount of virus in circulation under control and at as low a level as possible by vaccinating as many people ( including the youngest age groups ) as practicable ( less virus = less chance of any mutations slipping through the viruses ‘proof reading’ process).

“THE REMARKABLE AND MYSTERIOUS CORONAVIRUS GENOME
The SARS-CoV-2 genome is a strand of RNA that is about 29,900 bases long—near the limit for RNA viruses. Influenza has about 13,500 bases, and the rhinoviruses that cause common colds have about 8,000. (A base is a pair of compounds that are the building blocks of RNA and DNA.) Because the genome is so large, many mutations could occur during replication that would cripple the virus, but SARS-CoV-2 can proofread and correct copies. This quality control is common in human cells and in DNA viruses but highly unusual in RNA viruses. The long genome also has accessory genes, not fully understood, some of which may help it fend off our immune system.”

Ncovidius

mully79 said:

Most mutations happen in people who are immunosuppressed etc. ie the virus can stay in their bodies for longer to learn to evade treatments/vaccines etc.

if more people have the virus then someone who is going to cause a mutation is more likely to catch it.

Yes, it’s a function of both the relatively increased amount of virus, present in the immunosuppressed, and the fact the increased amount of virus present is left to it’s own devices for longer, that causes the biggest issues regarding mutations / variants. Also it’s known that this particular pathogen ( SARS-CoV-2 ) is more of an absolute bugger, than SARS was in the early 2000’s because of it’s ( SARS-CoV-2’s) increased dormant incubation period ( caused by its increased ability to hide from the body’s ‘alarm system’ for longer, whilst it’s invading and killing lung cells). This means it can be spread about more easily, because the infected person doesn’t realise they are infected as soon as with SARS, so tends to contact more people before they know there’s a problem / they feel ill / have symptoms. The more virus that’s present, not being dealt with by the body’s natural defences, and the longer it’s present the more chance there is that mutations / errors will slip past the ( unusual) ability of this R.N.A. virus to correct and eliminate it’s own errors. Whether it’s down to ( relatively fewer ) people with more virus in them for longer ( immunosuppressed people for example) or a relatively greater number of people who individually have relatively less virus, being dealt with more quickly ( large parts of the population not vaccinated, but with better natural ability to fight it )that amounts to pretty much the same problem ultimately. It ( SARS-CoV-2 ) doesn’t want variants that are more dangerous / deadly to the host, to proliferate, because if the hosts die, in ever increasing numbers, due to a dangerous mutation that’s slipped the metaphorical net, the virus runs out of hosts. In the mean time, lots more people die, and the ‘statistical serious illness / death spike’ is much larger, which is exactly what we don’t want to see, even if that ultimately helps to curtail the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to remain viable / leads to it’s self inflicted demise. That’s not an acceptable pay off. So by having more vaccinated people, we are ( in effect ) helping the virus to not become more dangerous / deadly owing to it’s ‘proof reading’ ability, (even though allowing it to do so would ultimately benefit humanity) but that would be at an unacceptable price.

kingstongraham

Forgot who you were for a bit there. For everyone else, that scientific American article is over a year old, so all the knowledge in it will be a bit out if date. I didn't read it.

pblakeney

shirley_basso said:

Re the CP vaccine - 1) below is corroborated on NHS website.

1) As kids won't have had CP, they won't have protection from shingles when older

2) (I think) Kids getting CP also strengthens the parents immune system from getting shingles

As far as I am aware, shingles is worse than CP. Luckily not had it

Not true. I've had chickenpox as a child, and shingles as an adult.
Copied from the NHS site - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/shingles/

"You cannot get shingles from someone with chickenpox

You cannot get shingles from someone with shingles or chickenpox.

But you can get chickenpox from someone with shingles if you have not had chickenpox before.

When people get chickenpox, the virus remains in the body. It can be reactivated later and cause shingles if someone's immune system is lowered.

This can be because of stress, certain conditions, or treatments like chemotherapy."

rick_chasey

Quite a few countries have chickenpox vaccine as standard.

NHS doesn’t partly for cost reasons but also for the following reasons

If a childhood chickenpox vaccination programme was introduced, people would not catch chickenpox as children because the infection would no longer circulate in areas where the majority of children had been vaccinated.

This would leave unvaccinated children susceptible to contracting chickenpox as adults, when they're more likely to develop a more severe infection or a secondary complication, or in pregnancy, when there's a risk of the infection harming the baby.

We could also see a significant increase in cases of shingles in adults.

When people get chickenpox, the virus remains in the body. This can then reactivate at a later date and cause shingles.

Being exposed to chickenpox as an adult (for example, through contact with infected children) boosts your immunity to shingles.

If you vaccinate children against chickenpox, you lose this natural boosting, so immunity in adults will drop and more shingles cases will occur

TheBigBean

The last bit is what I was referencing. Kids not being vaccinated is considered better for society as it supposedly helps prevent shingles in adults.

TheBigBean

Also, those who have been vaccinated, but still get chickenpox have a far milder version.

pblakeney

So in summary, getting chickenpox as a child boosts your immune system against shingles as an adult. But you can't get shingles as an adult until you've had chickenpox.
Surely best not to get chickenpox. Confused? You will be after this...

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

So in summary, getting chickenpox as a child boosts your immune system against shingles as an adult. But you can't get shingles as an adult until you've had chickenpox.
Surely best not to get chickenpox. Confused? You will be after this...

Getting chickenpox as an adult is quite serious.

TheBigBean

pblakeney said:

So in summary, getting chickenpox as a child boosts your immune system against shingles as an adult. But you can't get shingles as an adult until you've had chickenpox.
Surely best not to get chickenpox. Confused? You will be after this...

There's a shingles vaccine too.

Also, the US vaccinates all its children, so there is quite a lot of data available.

rjsterry

Ugh. Are we sure he's cut out for health secretary with nonsense like this.

https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1438023721017556994?s=19

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

So in summary, getting chickenpox as a child boosts your immune system against shingles as an adult. But you can't get shingles as an adult until you've had chickenpox.
Surely best not to get chickenpox. Confused? You will be after this...

Getting chickenpox as an adult is quite serious.

Which is why it makes sense to vaccinate all kids, so that some don't get unlucky and fail to contract it as a kid.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

The last bit is what I was referencing. Kids not being vaccinated is considered better for society as it supposedly helps prevent shingles in adults.

Putting it another way, kids don't get vaccinated so you don't need to either. All fine until you've got blisters on the inside of your eyelids and at risk of permanent eye damage.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

The last bit is what I was referencing. Kids not being vaccinated is considered better for society as it supposedly helps prevent shingles in adults.

Putting it another way, kids don't get vaccinated so you don't need to either. All fine until you've got blisters on the inside of your eyelids and at risk of permanent eye damage.

Better to just have both a shingles vaccine and a chickenpox one so no one needs to suffer.

rick_chasey

NHS may have to introduce that if there is quite a big spike in parents going private to vaccinate their children to chickenpox.

I sometimes find it informative to see how other Western countries treat public health to see what is just local opinion and what isn't and it seems a majority do vaccinate against chickenpox - in placed I'd happily live - so I figured it was fine and got my child vaccinated.

It is another 2 doses jab.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

The last bit is what I was referencing. Kids not being vaccinated is considered better for society as it supposedly helps prevent shingles in adults.

Putting it another way, kids don't get vaccinated so you don't need to either. All fine until you've got blisters on the inside of your eyelids and at risk of permanent eye damage.

Better to just have both a shingles vaccine and a chickenpox one so no one needs to suffer.

Are they different when it's the same virus? Shingles is just chickenpox that's been chilling in your body for a few years isn't it?

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

The last bit is what I was referencing. Kids not being vaccinated is considered better for society as it supposedly helps prevent shingles in adults.

Putting it another way, kids don't get vaccinated so you don't need to either. All fine until you've got blisters on the inside of your eyelids and at risk of permanent eye damage.

Better to just have both a shingles vaccine and a chickenpox one so no one needs to suffer.

Are they different when it's the same virus? Shingles is just chickenpox that's been chilling in your body for a few years isn't it?

How does the shingles vaccine work?

The vaccine recommended for most people is a live vaccine called Zostavax. It contains a weakened chickenpox virus (varicella-zoster virus). It's similar , but not identical, to the chickenpox vaccine.

People with a weakened immune system cannot have live vaccines. They will be offered a non-live vaccine called Shingrix. It activates the immune system but also contains an ingredient called an adjuvant, which helps to boost the response to the vaccine.

Very occasionally, people develop chickenpox following shingles vaccination (fewer than 1 in 10,000 individuals). Talk to a GP if this happens to you.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

NHS may have to introduce that if there is quite a big spike in parents going private to vaccinate their children to chickenpox.

I sometimes find it informative to see how other Western countries treat public health to see what is just local opinion and what isn't and it seems a majority do vaccinate against chickenpox - in placed I'd happily live - so I figured it was fine and got my child vaccinated.

It is another 2 doses jab.

It is available for over 70s on the NHS. Over 50s in the US.