• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Media Coverage of COVID -19

Status
Not open for further replies.

johnnychips

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2011
Messages
3,826
Location
Leeds
I was pleasantly surprised that the - two days ago - overreacting to the Indian virus was not followed up by massive headlines by the rise in cases today. Of course, we know that rising cases may well not lead to rising hospitalisation and death. But then again, it is more important to know that the BBC fiddled an interview with someone over twenty-five years ago.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
17,853
Location
Oakham
I was pleasantly surprised that the - two days ago - overreacting to the Indian virus was not followed up by massive headlines by the rise in cases today.
According to the Government's own official figures, the number of infections detected this week is only 28 higher than it was for last week, at 16,107 across the last 7 days, so there isn't really a huge rise in infections. ( Presumably the rise in this Indian variety is being cancelled out by a fall in the previously dominant varieties? )

Screenshot below from the website showing the figures.


1621549910700.png
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,927
Location
First Class
According to the Government's own official figures, the number of infections detected this week is only 28 higher than it was for last week, at 16,107 across the last 7 days, so there isn't really a huge rise in infections. ( Presumably the rise in this Indian variety is being cancelled out by a fall in the previously dominant varieties? )

Screenshot below from the website showing the figures.


View attachment 96681

This is what I (and quite a few others) suspected all along; it’s swings and roundabouts!

For all the hysteria around these variants (or scariants as they’re now aptly being labelled) we wouldn’t even know they existed were it not for the latest advances in genomic sequencing.
 

sjpowermac

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
2,079
Yes I am - basically there is a class of enzymes called "reverse transcriptase" that splice genetic material, from RNA, into a genome. The best explanation is the reasonably accurate Wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase

When I did University-level life sciences, it was not mentioned much (if at all) in the lectures but it was there in the textbooks. That was the turn of the millennium.

There are even genetic sequences, that scientists have observed, that can be accounted for by this phenomenon. Again the Wikipedia article provides a good explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
Again many thanks for the reply.

Are you saying that a reason not to get vaccinated is that in future there might be a possibility that RNA vaccines could be tweaked in order to change DNA?

The reason that I’m asking is that you initially brought up the topic in relation to someone declining the vaccine.

I’m definitely not judging, I’m just always curious to understand the reasons that people have when they are different from my own.

Many thanks again for the time you’ve taken in replying and the links you gave. There are certainly some very deep ethical considerations heading our way, possibly in the not too distant future.
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,518
Location
Southampton
Yes I am - basically there is a class of enzymes called "reverse transcriptase" that splice genetic material, from RNA, into a genome. The best explanation is the reasonably accurate Wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase

When I did University-level life sciences, it was not mentioned much (if at all) in the lectures but it was there in the textbooks. That was the turn of the millennium.

There are even genetic sequences, that scientists have observed, that can be accounted for by this phenomenon. Again the Wikipedia article provides a good explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
I have heard similar information, that RNA-based vaccines like Pfizer are quicker to develop but might have long-term health implications because of how they work, and that as such it is preferable that younger people avoid this type.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
6,044
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
Given the lag between infections, hospitalisations and deaths there's probably not been enough time to make a judgement. From what I've read the vaccine defences seem to be holding for now, which is obviously good news. We'll find out for sure over the next 2-3 weeks.

We shall find out, but I'm very optimistic that this isn't going to turn into what has become the usual hospitalisations spike. This would be a very different story had this arrived back in December or January.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,913
We shall find out, but I'm very optimistic that this isn't going to turn into what has become the usual hospitalisations spike. This would be a very different story had this arrived back in December or January.
I'm reasonably optimistic; although there are grounds for caution with local flare ups, there no evidence of 'vaccine escape' by the variant. Good twitter thread on this:

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1395439998640574465
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
6,044
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,550
Location
Taunton or Kent
This is what I (and quite a few others) suspected all along; it’s swings and roundabouts!

For all the hysteria around these variants (or scariants as they’re now aptly being labelled) we wouldn’t even know they existed were it not for the latest advances in genomic sequencing.
This is a classic example of "just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should." It makes sense to track mutations to ensure vaccines keep up, something we already do with flu, but the extent to which we're obsessing over variants is ridiculous and must be to keep the fear up enough to sustain this unsustainable strategy for longer. Furthermore as the vaccines still work against the Indian variant we shouldn't be worrying over it, even the government have confirmed this but they still obsess with trying to track the variant down.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,913
... but the extent to which we're obsessing over variants is ridiculous and must be to keep the fear up enough to sustain this unsustainable strategy for longer.
The media response to covid is not really different to anything else - news is always hyped up to sell copy and boost viewing figures. Variants are the new thing to be talked about, so that's what the media talks about. This is a far simpler explanation than a vaguely defined conspiracy to maintain restrictions.

Furthermore as the vaccines still work against the Indian variant we shouldn't be worrying over it, even the government have confirmed this but they still obsess with trying to track the variant down.
Surely it's sensible to keep a watchful eye on variants? No need to worry at present, but we've been caught off guard before.
 

initiation

Member
Joined
10 Nov 2014
Messages
432
Surely it's sensible to keep a watchful eye on variants? No need to worry at present, but we've been caught off guard before.
There is a difference between keeping a watchful eye and what the media actually did which was splashing headlines about modellers who forecast that cases will sky rocket and say that we should delay any re-openeings.
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,577
Again many thanks for the reply.

Are you saying that a reason not to get vaccinated is that in future there might be a possibility that RNA vaccines could be tweaked in order to change DNA?

The reason that I’m asking is that you initially brought up the topic in relation to someone declining the vaccine.

I’m definitely not judging, I’m just always curious to understand the reasons that people have when they are different from my own.

Many thanks again for the time you’ve taken in replying and the links you gave. There are certainly some very deep ethical considerations heading our way, possibly in the not too distant future.

It is running in parallel between what RNA vaccines could do in the future, and the fact that I am passing anyway because the odds are low of a serious event (assuming a reasonable worst case scenario being infected with the COVID virus) and all the traditional/non-RNA vaccines are new-to-market designs as well. With such low odds of an adverse event from natural COVID, I would like to see how the trial volunteers are doing in two or three years' time before I take any of them.

On top of that, my view is that a mass vaccination campaign, where many of the doses are being administered solely or primarily to confer herd immunity, using something that is barely out of a rushed clinical trial is, at best, ethically questionable. That is the biggest issue for me.

Other people's risk factors may vary; I would say that you should check what the likely benefit from vaccination is (given any personal risk factors) before deciding whether to book in.
 

SamYeager

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2014
Messages
352
I have heard similar information, that RNA-based vaccines like Pfizer are quicker to develop but might have long-term health implications because of how they work, and that as such it is preferable that younger people avoid this type.
Ironically the one vaccine that authorities are now advising should be avoided by younger people is one that is NOT RNA-based aka Astra-Zeneca. Shrugs.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
It is running in parallel between what RNA vaccines could do in the future, and the fact that I am passing anyway because the odds are low of a serious event (assuming a reasonable worst case scenario being infected with the COVID virus)

Best case scenario - you get a positive test result but don't show symptoms, which likely means you develop antibodies.

Worst case scenario - you get the virus, take a turn for the worse and get admitted to hospital and either don't recover or spend many months in hospital (as happened with Kate Garraway's husband.) Well actually I suppose the worse case is you get admitted to hospital while on holiday in southern Europe or further afield with medics talking a funny language and the medical care on offer possibly being a lower standard than you'd expect.

and all the traditional/non-RNA vaccines are new-to-market designs as well. With such low odds of an adverse event from natural COVID, I would like to see how the trial volunteers are doing in two or three years' time before I take any of them.

Fair enough that you don't want to take the new vaccine but will it be readily available as a 'full course' in 2 or 3 years time? If it's pretty much eliminated in the UK then we might find it's only available as a 'travel clinic' vaccine that you pay for privately or as a booster for the most vulnerable groups under the NHS.

Some younger people got the vaccine almost straight away due to being care workers or NHS staff, we know that the reaction 2 members of NHS staff had led to the Pfizer being banned for those with any form of severe allergy.

On top of that, my view is that a mass vaccination campaign, where many of the doses are being administered solely or primarily to confer herd immunity, using something that is barely out of a rushed clinical trial is, at best, ethically questionable. That is the biggest issue for me.

I don't think of mass vaccination as herd immunity. When the Meningitis C vaccine was approved it was issued to as many high school pupils as possible in a short time frame. Granted that went through the usual vaccine approval process but mass vaccination is a cheaper roll out method than doing it sporadically.

Other people's risk factors may vary; I would say that you should check what the likely benefit from vaccination is (given any personal risk factors) before deciding whether to book in.
Ironically the one vaccine that authorities are now advising should be avoided by younger people is one that is NOT RNA-based aka Astra-Zeneca. Shrugs.

But then the AZ one wasn't as successful as preventing infections in the trials, so you could ask the question why take the risks of AZ if it's there's a c.30% chance it won't prevent an infection, when with others the chance of an infection after a full course is closer to c.5% even before we consider if the reported very small risk of a blood clot with AZ is probable.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,550
Location
Taunton or Kent
There seems to be some decent coverage of health collateral damage on front pages tomorrow, with cancer and dentist waiting times the focus:

1621812631986.png1621812642117.png1621812652977.png
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,560
It is running in parallel between what RNA vaccines could do in the future, and the fact that I am passing anyway because the odds are low of a serious event (assuming a reasonable worst case scenario being infected with the COVID virus) and all the traditional/non-RNA vaccines are new-to-market designs as well. With such low odds of an adverse event from natural COVID, I would like to see how the trial volunteers are doing in two or three years' time before I take any of them.

On top of that, my view is that a mass vaccination campaign, where many of the doses are being administered solely or primarily to confer herd immunity, using something that is barely out of a rushed clinical trial is, at best, ethically questionable. That is the biggest issue for me.

Other people's risk factors may vary; I would say that you should check what the likely benefit from vaccination is (given any personal risk factors) before deciding whether to book in.
Why is mass vaccination to deliver herd immunity ethically questionable? I’m not asking about the vaccines themselves, or the trials they’ve undergone, but the principle of the campaign itself?
 

Red Onion

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2012
Messages
416
Location
Aberdeen
Three years is horrific. I booked one the other day and earliest they could give me was the start of July. I count myself lucky now!
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,577
Why is mass vaccination to deliver herd immunity ethically questionable? I’m not asking about the vaccines themselves, or the trials they’ve undergone, but the principle of the campaign itself?
You need to somehow ^persuade^ people to take a pharmacological treatment that is not in their best interests. That is hard to do without resorting to some form of deception and/or coercion.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,560
You need to somehow ^persuade^ people to take a pharmacological treatment that is not in their best interests. That is hard to do without resorting to some form of deception and/or coercion.
Understood. I would disagree strongly with the perspective that the treatment has solely to be in an individual’s best interests when there is a strong public health benefit from that treatment AND low personal risk.
 

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,411
Three years is horrific. I booked one the other day and earliest they could give me was the start of July. I count myself lucky now!
Problems with getting an NHS dentist appointment is nothing new. This seems to have been a problem in some parts of the country for years.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,927
Location
First Class
Understood. I would disagree strongly with the perspective that the treatment has solely to be in an individual’s best interests when there is a strong public health benefit from that treatment AND low personal risk.

But what is the public health benefit at this point? It certainly makes sense for people in the vulnerable groups to be vaccinated as the virus clearly poses a threat to them. Outside of these groups, and certainly once you're talking about people in their 20s and 30s, I'm not clear as to what the benefit is? The only potential benefit I can see is a possible reduction in transmission, but if the virus is transmitting harmlessly among vaccinated and young, fit and healthy people I don't really see the problem. It's just another endemic virus like flu (and arguably less dangerous at this point). I can fully understand why people would rather let their immune system do the work. Speaking of flu, is there now a precedent for vaccinating everybody against that as well? This is where it starts to get a little "messy" in my opinion.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,560
But what is the public health benefit at this point? It certainly makes sense for people in the vulnerable groups to be vaccinated as the virus clearly poses a threat to them. Outside of these groups, and certainly once you're talking about people in their 20s and 30s, I'm not clear as to what the benefit is? The only potential benefit I can see is a possible reduction in transmission, but if the virus is transmitting harmlessly among vaccinated and young, fit and healthy people I don't really see the problem. It's just another endemic virus like flu (and arguably less dangerous at this point). I can fully understand why people would rather let their immune system do the work. Speaking of flu, is there now a precedent for vaccinating everybody against that as well? This is where it starts to get a little "messy" in my opinion.
The difference is that Covid is markedly more dangerous than flu, as we've seen in the last year, so the benefits of vaccination are in reducing the total level of infection. As for the benefit, the whole point of herd immunity is that the incidence of the relevant disease is so low, and immunity to it so widespread, that the impact of it is heavily contained. The age profile and infectivity of measles are different, but it makes the point well - it is not regarded as particularly dangerous but where pockets of low immunity develop, it transmits in ways that rapidly lead to hospitalisations and deaths. The direct benefit for my child of the vaccine is low, but the public benefit significant.

As for routine flu vaccinations, the issue with them is the degree of change that flu undergoes year on year - the different vaccinations each year are a reflection of how the disease changes year on year; something that doesn't appear to be the case with Covid.

Vaccines are not just medicines, and the cost/benefit of vaccination to me as an individual is not the same as for a medicine because of that wider effect.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,927
Location
First Class
The difference is that Covid is markedly more dangerous than flu, as we've seen in the last year, so the benefits of vaccination are in reducing the total level of infection. As for the benefit, the whole point of herd immunity is that the incidence of the relevant disease is so low, and immunity to it so widespread, that the impact of it is heavily contained. The age profile and infectivity of measles are different, but it makes the point well - it is not regarded as particularly dangerous but where pockets of low immunity develop, it transmits in ways that rapidly lead to hospitalisations and deaths. The direct benefit for my child of the vaccine is low, but the public benefit significant.

As for routine flu vaccinations, the issue with them is the degree of change that flu undergoes year on year - the different vaccinations each year are a reflection of how the disease changes year on year; something that doesn't appear to be the case with Covid.

Vaccines are not just medicines, and the cost/benefit of vaccination to me as an individual is not the same as for a medicine because of that wider effect.

Is it though? It was this time last year with an immune naive population, but I can't feasibly see how we could find ourselves in the same situation again. We will however see thousands of flu deaths again this winter (although they may be lower than normal for a year or two). The majority of people, overwhelmingly so outwith the vulnerable groups, experience zero to mild Covid symptoms and will develop natural immunity. If all they can do is transmit it between each other and those who have been vaccinated I'm not sure there's a problem?
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,560
Is it though? It was this time last year with an immune naive population, but I can't feasibly see how we could find ourselves in the same situation again. We will however see thousands of flu deaths again this winter (although they may be lower than normal for a year or two). The majority of people, overwhelmingly so outwith the vulnerable groups, experience zero to mild Covid symptoms and will develop natural immunity. If all they can do is transmit it between each other and those who have been vaccinated I'm not sure there's a problem?
If natural immunity is equivalent to vaccinated - a contestable position.
 

kristiang85

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2018
Messages
2,745
If natural immunity is equivalent to vaccinated - a contestable position.

Months after recovering from mild cases of COVID-19, people still have immune cells in their body pumping out antibodies against the virus that causes COVID-19, according to a study from researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Such cells could persist for a lifetime, churning out antibodies all the while.

The findings, published May 24 in the journal Nature, suggest that mild cases of COVID-19 leave those infected with lasting antibody protection and that repeated bouts of illness are likely to be uncommon.

“Last fall, there were reports that antibodies wane quickly after infection with the virus that causes COVID-19, and mainstream media interpreted that to mean that immunity was not long-lived,” said senior author Ali Ellebedy, PhD, an associate professor of pathology & immunology, of medicine and of molecular microbiology. “But that’s a misinterpretation of the data. It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau. Here, we found antibody-producing cells in people 11 months after first symptoms. These cells will live and produce antibodies for the rest of people’s lives. That’s strong evidence for long-lasting immunity.”

During a viral infection, antibody-producing immune cells rapidly multiply and circulate in the blood, driving antibody levels sky-high. Once the infection is resolved, most such cells die off, and blood antibody levels drop. A small population of antibody-producing cells, called long-lived plasma cells, migrate to the bone marrow and settle in, where they continually secrete low levels of antibodies into the bloodstream to help guard against another encounter with the virus.

The key to figuring out whether COVID-19 leads to long-lasting antibody protection, Ellebedy realized, lies in the bone marrow. To find out whether those who have recovered from mild cases of COVID-19 harbor long-lived plasma cells that produce antibodies specifically targeted to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, Ellebedy teamed up with co-author Iskra Pusic, MD, an associate professor of medicine. Ellebedy already was working with co-authors Rachel Presti, MD, PhD, an associate professor of medicine, and Jane O’Halloran, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine, on a project to track antibody levels in blood samples from COVID-19 survivors.

The team already had enrolled 77 participants who were giving blood samples at three-month intervals starting about a month after initial infection. Most participants had had mild cases of COVID-19; only six had been hospitalized.

With Pusic’s help, Ellebedy and colleagues obtained bone marrow from 18 of the participants seven or eight months after their initial infections. Five of them came back four months later and provided a second bone marrow sample. For comparison, the scientists also obtained bone marrow from 11 people who had never had COVID-19.

As expected, antibody levels in the blood of the COVID-19 participants dropped quickly in the first few months after infection and then mostly leveled off, with some antibodies detectable even 11 months after infection. Further, 15 of the 19 bone marrow samples from people who had had COVID-19 contained antibody-producing cells specifically targeting the virus that causes COVID-19. Such cells could still be found four months later in the five people who came back to provide a second bone-marrow sample. None of the 11 people who had never had COVID-19 had such antibody-producing cells in their bone marrow.

“People with mild cases of COVID-19 clear the virus from their bodies two to three weeks after infection, so there would be no virus driving an active immune response seven or 11 months after infection,” Ellebedy said. “These cells are not dividing. They are quiescent, just sitting in the bone marrow and secreting antibodies. They have been doing that ever since the infection resolved, and they will continue doing that indefinitely.”

People who were infected and never had symptoms also may be left with long-lasting immunity, the researchers speculated. But it’s yet to be investigated whether those who endured more severe infection would be protected against a future bout of disease, they said.

“It could go either way,” said first author Jackson Turner, PhD, an instructor in pathology & immunology. “Inflammation plays a major role in severe COVID-19, and too much inflammation can lead to defective immune responses. But on the other hand, the reason why people get really sick is often because they have a lot of virus in their bodies, and having a lot of virus around can lead to a good immune response. So it’s not clear. We need to replicate the study in people with moderate to severe infections to understand whether they are likely to be protected from reinfection.”

Ellebedy and colleagues now are studying whether vaccination also induces long-lived antibody-producing cells.
 

kristiang85

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2018
Messages
2,745
If that paper is representative and sustained, then that is good news. Everything I’ve previously seen has suggested the evidence is unclear.

Well, naturally - it is hard to get evidence of sustained immunity from a virus that has only been identified in the last year and a half.

However, all the long-term evidence we've seen from the first SARS epidemic is good in this respect, with t-cell immunity still present in many.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,508
Location
Cheshire
If that paper is representative and sustained, then that is good news. Everything I’ve previously seen has suggested the evidence is unclear.
Unclear in what way? That the data wasn't in, because we do have a very good understanding of how the human immune system retains genetic memory of previous infections in order to fight repeat infections. So unless SARS-CoV-2 was from some completely new, previously unseen genetic line there was always going to be the possibility that infection would have the same effect as other viruses. And as early as a year ago evidence was emerging that people who had no exposure to it still had some level of pre-existing immunity, suggesting that exposure to other viruses of similar genetic sequences could be the reason for this.

This latest research shouldn't be too much of a shock, well with perhaps the exception of the people seemingly wanting the virus to be worse than it actually is, or at least for the restrictions to go on much longer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top