COVID-19 - READ THE RULES BEFORE REPLYING

[dalekphalm]

<removed by staff>

 

2 hours ago, Donut417 said:

How much of it is due to the lock down? I mean it cant spread if people are not going out in public. Also how much of this is due to lack of reporting because people are too afraid to touch a hospital? Also how much of it is due to more people potentially getting a flu vaccine? I got mine back in the October. I get mine every year because I have had the Flu, and I dont want to get it again. 

All of it?

 

What exactly are you trying to say here though? All of those things contributed to the near zero case rates for Influenza.

Edited February 27, 2021 by SansVarnic
Removed content.

[Donut417]

35 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

exactly are you trying to say here though? All of those things contributed to the near zero case rates for Influenza.

Between people not mingling in large groups and people afraid of hospitals the numbers are going to be low. Because if you don’t have large groups of people on top of every one sanitizing the fuck out of everything creates and environment that makes it harder to spread. Then you take into the fact people are most likely avoiding hospitals unless they are dead or dieing, that means reported numbers will be down. 

[LogicalDrm]

*** Mark for cleaning ***

 

Don't try to continue the discussion about the graph presented by 3 lions further the points about it has been made. I will leave the graph and following discussion on since its quite effective show of "facts" being used as weapon.

[dalekphalm]

Just as a PSA, Influenza Virus is not a Coronavirus. They're different virus types - though related in some ways.

 

Example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus

 

Influenza A Virus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_A_virus

 

As we can all see, they share the same Kingdom, but nothing else.

 

As a comparison, Humans are part of the Kingdom: Animalia.

 

That's like saying "A snail is a human, because they're both Kingdom Animalia".

 

This is an example of a fundamental misunderstanding of how viruses are categorized. Or, it's a simple case of misinformation.

 

Either way, please people, stop saying that Influenza is a Coronavirus. It's not. Full stop.

[captain_to_fire]

6 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

Influenza is more contagious than the flu

flu is just the layman moniker for influenza 

[captain_to_fire]

5 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

I'd still probably argue the flu is more contagious than COVID. COVID is just a more severe seasonal coronavirus

If only it was seasonal but it has survived four seasons

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

flu is just the layman moniker for influenza 

I know I’m dumb. It’s even more embarrassing I typed this as an immunologist. No posting before finishing my first coffee. 

 

10 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

If only it was seasonal but it has survived four seasons

Time certainly has gone by. They’re having a one-year since the start of lockdown in NZ soon. However the seasonal corona viruses are still quite similar.

 

I was reading a paper a while ago that being immunised with the flu vaccine activated the immune system, with seasonal corona viruses circulating in an individual at the time of vaccination (as anyone is crawling with viruses). That gave some patients partial immunity, due to the activation against the seasonal coronavirus. 

[minibois]

This seems like a good place to get some insight, as I am having trouble forming an opinion on something at the moment.

 

(Let me start off by saying this question is not meant to stir up politics discussion, it's just the context about why I'm think off of this)

Long story short, some political parties here are wanting to make a "vaccination passport", specifically for the COVID-19 vaccination. This passport - or rather the confirmation you had the vaccination - can be used to go to events/school/etc. in person.

They are even doing tests at the moment with events that have neither social distancing nor masks (of course the tests will determine if this is feasible).

Without having the vaccination, some of these establishments might allow for a negative COVID-19 test result too.

 

That is a proposal.

The things I was thinking off though include the effectiveness of the vaccinations and the 'fairness' of this passport. My main questions are:

1. Most of the vaccinations are reported to be ~95% effective, meaning people still can get sick from the virus if I'm understanding this correctly?

2. The other concern I have, is that people with this vaccination can still carry the virus and - through whatever means - transmit them to others, including those without the vaccination (or with it for that matter), is that correct?

 

 

Again, this isn't a political question, but with a national election coming up, I want to judge different parties' stance with a more education opinion on the subject. Plus, I wanted to know more about possible risks for unvaccinated people, when vaccinated people would go to these events.

I was mainly looking for answers to the above two numbered questions, or pointers to where I could read up on this.

 

If anything was unclear, please tell me and I would be happy to clarify what I meant.

[WkdPaul]

@miniboisthat's a good question, talks about a vaccine passport have started here in Canada, and I'm also curious, and BTW, not all vaccines are 95% effective.

 

The AstraZeneca vaccine is around 62% ;

https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/mobile/62-per-cent-effectiveness-is-still-better-than-zero-ottawa-s-top-doctor-addresses-concerns-about-covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-1.5327288

 

This has all sorts of implications as to why a vaccine passport might be a bad idea, especially if it's used to host events without social distancing and PPE...

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, minibois said:

This seems like a good place to get some insight, as I am having trouble forming an opinion on something at the moment.

 

(Let me start off by saying this question is not meant to stir up politics discussion, it's just the context about why I'm think off of this)

Long story short, some political parties here are wanting to make a "vaccination passport", specifically for the COVID-19 vaccination. This passport - or rather the confirmation you had the vaccination - can be used to go to events/school/etc. in person.

They are even doing tests at the moment with events that have neither social distancing nor masks (of course the tests will determine if this is feasible).

Without having the vaccination, some of these establishments might allow for a negative COVID-19 test result too.

 

That is a proposal.

The things I was thinking off though include the effectiveness of the vaccinations and the 'fairness' of this passport. My main questions are:

1. Most of the vaccinations are reported to be ~95% effective, meaning people still can get sick from the virus if I'm understanding this correctly?

2. The other concern I have, is that people with this vaccination can still carry the virus and - through whatever means - transmit them to others, including those without the vaccination (or with it for that matter), is that correct?

 

 

Again, this isn't a political question, but with a national election coming up, I want to judge different parties' stance with a more education opinion on the subject. Plus, I wanted to know more about possible risks for unvaccinated people, when vaccinated people would go to these events.

I was mainly looking for answers to the above two numbered questions, or pointers to where I could read up on this.

 

If anything was unclear, please tell me and I would be happy to clarify what I meant.

My immediate concern is that even people who have had both shots and where enough time has passed for them to build up antibodies can still get sick. When they say 95% efficacy they don't mean 95 out of 100 people become totally immune, they mean it offers each person up to 95% protection from the disease.

 

Some people might have had both jabs and still get pretty sick from it. Its very unlikely they'll end up in hospital and even less likely they'll die but that doesn't mean vaccinated people can throw their masks and hand gel in the bin and anybody that does is pretty stupid.

 

It spreads around through contact, being vaccination protects from illness but not from it spreading. Mass gatherings will spread it, those people probably won't get sick but they might still take it home and give it to an elderly relative.

[minibois]

1 hour ago, wkdpaul said:

@miniboisthat's a good question, talks about a vaccine passport have started here in Canada, and I'm also curious, and BTW, not all vaccines are 95% effective.

 

The AstraZeneca vaccine is around 62% ;

https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/mobile/62-per-cent-effectiveness-is-still-better-than-zero-ottawa-s-top-doctor-addresses-concerns-about-covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-1.5327288

 

This has all sorts of implications as to why a vaccine passport might be a bad idea, especially if it's used to host events without social distancing and PPE...

At the moment, most of the vaccines given here are either the 95% effective BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine or the 92% effective Moderna vaccine.

The AstraZeneca vaccine currently represent (approx.) 6.3% of all vaccines used, Moderna is the same.

BioNTech/Pfizer represents currently 87.4% of all vaccines used. 

 

Looking at the expectations, they expect AstraZeneca to represent about 26% of all vaccines used.

So that 62% effectiveness (and the possibly lowered effectiveness with the others, for people with health problems) do not inspire confidence in me, for this whole "vaccine = let's ditch the PPE and hold massive events" idea.

53 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

My immediate concern is that even people who have had both shots and where enough time has passed for them to build up antibodies can still get sick. When they say 95% efficacy they don't mean 95 out of 100 people become totally immune, they mean it offers each person up to 95% protection from the disease.

 

Some people might have had both jabs and still get pretty sick from it. Its very unlikely they'll end up in hospital and even less likely they'll die but that doesn't mean vaccinated people can throw their masks and hand gel in the bin and anybody that does is pretty stupid.

 

It spreads around through contact, being vaccination protects from illness but not from it spreading. Mass gatherings will spread it, those people probably won't get sick but they might still take it home and give it to an elderly relative.

That was my main concern. Even ignoring the 95% effectiveness (or the 62%, with a large portion of the country who will be getting Moderna), my main concern was people with a vaccine honestly just being unsafe and transmitting it to not vaccinated people.

 

Just being blunt, I am in a position of probably being in the very last groups of people getting the vaccine (due to me not being of senior age, not working in with vulnerable people, not having pre-existing conditions, etc.), but I do work in a customer facing setting. I am just very afraid of being forced to face people again, them thinking "me has vaccine, me go do whatever I want" and bringing that disease with them to me.

Maybe that's sounding super paranoid, but after more than a year of all of this, it is something that has crossed my mind more than once, especially now they're actually wanting to implement "no PPE events" possibly (again, depending on the results of the experiments).

 

Thanks to you two both for answering my post with your insights, providing me with some thinking material too.

[WkdPaul]

@Master Disaster

@minibois

 

My other concern about a passport to use it to restrict access to locations or activities, is what about people that can't get the vaccine for legit reasons, they have to stay home indefinitely regardless of PPE or social distancing?

 

I think it can be used for traveling, but aside from that I'm not sure it's a good idea to use it to give people a blank card to skip on wearing PPE or social distancing.

[IkeaGnome]

I'm a little late on this news, but we're trying to reopen here. Be smart people! This doesn't mean life as normal..

Spoiler

 

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2021/02/15/as-covid-emergency-expires-alaskas-border-screening-becomes-optional/

 

On the vaccine passport idea. I don't think it's a good local solution. There's many reason to why someone might not be able to be vaccinated. On a wider scale (intrastate and international travel) it could be good if done right. I think it would make more sense to say "With that piece of paper you can travel here without a 2 week quarantine. Quarantine for 2 or 3 days (What ever is chosen), take a test and come back negative. Have fun in your travels. Keep wearing masks/social distancing." There's a lot of places really suffering without tourism. That's understandable, but let's focus on trying to get stuff open for them in a SAFE way with the willingness to rollback that policy if it starts to not work anymore. 

[Rolling2405]

On 2/27/2021 at 10:30 AM, RorzNZ said:

COVID has been eliminated however. 

We all hope that this will happen but I don't think it will happen the way things are right now.

 

• The virus has spread worldwide
• The virus has mutated and there are new strains that are even more contagious than the original COVID-19 strain
• It is more contagious than the flu.

 

We can't get rid of the flu so I think it is unlikely we will be able to get rid of COVID-19. I think the only way thing will go 100% back to normal to how things were before COVID-19 is if people get vaccinated and treatments are developed so that COVID-19 becomes manageable enough that it becomes like the flu

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, Thomas001 said:

We can't get rid of the flu so I think it is unlikely we will be able to get rid of COVID-19

Actually that is possible but globally we have chosen not to due to the economic and social impacts of it and the generally accepted idea of the improbability that every country and every person will actually do what is required to make this possible, current pandemic as evidence to that.

 

Edit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go9Ar0bPkUk (Video is also a good watch for those interested. Second speaker is more about statistics and science, slide above from that. First is about governmental response etc and isn't really that interesting).

 

[captain_to_fire]

7 hours ago, minibois said:

1. Most of the vaccinations are reported to be ~95% effective, meaning people still can get sick from the virus if I'm understanding this correctly?

around 90% effective to the OG SARS-Coronavirus-2, the SA and Brazil mutations lead to decreased efficacy

 

7 hours ago, minibois said:

2. The other concern I have, is that people with this vaccination can still carry the virus and - through whatever means - transmit them to others, including those without the vaccination (or with it for that matter), is that correct?

you can still carry the virus through fomites and infect others, but assuming your body was able to quickly ramp up antibodies and other immune cells, you cannot transmit the virus through sneezing respiratory droplets. The adaptive immune system once it recognizes a known antigen can quickly respond in a matter of few hours instead of two weeks.

[Master Disaster]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Actually that is possible but globally we have chosen not to due to the economic and social impacts of it and the generally accepted idea of the improbability that every country and every person will actually do what is required to make this possible, current pandemic as evidence to that.

 

Edit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go9Ar0bPkUk (Video is also a good watch for those interested. Second speaker is more about statistics and science, slide above from that. First is about governmental response etc and isn't really that interesting).

 

Moving forward, during flu season I fully intend to keep up with most current measures like keeping my distance and using alcohol gel even after we return to normality (or as close to it as we can).

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Moving forward, during flu season I fully intend to keep up with most current measures like keeping my distance and using alcohol gel even after we return to normality (or as close to it as we can).

The extra hygiene and sick leave policies have been attributed to 2000 fewer general respiratory illness deaths, yea our country is small so that is not an insignificant number for us. Considering the fact that in that linked presentation there was projected deaths of 9000 with 7000 of those being COVID and that other 2000 being the general total lower deaths mentioned. Now you can say the COVID data is more just statistical modeling and a bit harder to say is solid numbers but the influenza data is based on real historical data and current data, it's got a much stronger degree of accuracy.

 

Basically it goes to show that there should be a general better emphasis on hygiene as it not only does save lives it actually has a net positive economic impact, another thing we have seen in the last few months is an improvement to our economy even with borders closed. So we can do better, not this obviously that's way too far, but better for sure.

[captain_to_fire]

Nothing beats flu and cornaviruses better than taking a bath or handwashing with soap and water. I remember around March where many people are hoarding every bottle of rubbing alcohol and toilet paper in every supermarket shelf, but no one pays attention to hand and bath soaps.

[captain_to_fire]

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

-snip-

Are you saying that this guy's Norton antivirus mask will not protect him from Covid ridden droplets? 

/s

 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, captain_to_fire said:

Are you saying that this guy's Norton antivirus mask will not protect him from Covid ridden droplets? 

Has he activated his free trial copy? 

[minibois]

11 hours ago, wkdpaul said:

My other concern about a passport to use it to restrict access to locations or activities, is what about people that can't get the vaccine for legit reasons, they have to stay home indefinitely regardless of PPE or social distancing?

I'd guess people that can't take the vaccine for whatever reason will suffer the same fate as those who will get it last; they either can't participate in anything or need to get a negative test (for the events that do allow for that).

The idea probably being "herd immunity will take care of them now!" too. I am not sure if that is all a good idea, but that's what I've been hearing thrown around.

7 hours ago, captain_to_fire said:

around 90% effective to the OG SARS-Coronavirus-2, the SA and Brazil mutations lead to decreased efficacy

 

you can still carry the virus through fomites and infect others, but assuming your body was able to quickly ramp up antibodies and other immune cells, you cannot transmit the virus through sneezing respiratory droplets. The adaptive immune system once it recognizes a known antigen can quickly respond in a matter of few hours instead of two weeks.

Thanks for the reply!

Especially that second part was what was worrying to me.

 

I still got a lot of thinking to do, but I don't think I am a fan of all the "vaccine, no PPE" party ideas.

[captain_to_fire]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Has he activated his free trial copy? 

looks like an OEM copy lol 

21 minutes ago, minibois said:

Thanks for the reply!

Especially that second part was what was worrying to me.

It's nice to be cautious but I don't think getting paranoid is good either. The stress of overthinking if you got exposed might actually be bad to you as stress causes the release of cortisol which is an immunosuppressive hormone. 

[minibois]

1 hour ago, captain_to_fire said:

It's nice to be cautious but I don't think getting paranoid is good either. The stress of overthinking if you got exposed might actually be bad to you as stress causes the release of cortisol which is an immunosuppressive hormone. 

Thanks for the concern, but I think I'm still level-headed throughout this. The 'worrying' part I was mainly referring to, is me having to decide if I think those events are a good idea (because political election coming up and have to choice a party that aligns with my thoughts), but I just didn't have the required information to make an accurate judgement.

To be fair, I don't think anyone knows the right answer, until at the very least the experiments are done, but it's just difficult to know what think, when I don't have the full picture.

[minibois]

Pain.

The other day I talked about the "corona test events" they are beginning to hold, to experiment with the viability of large events, possibly with no PPE/social distancing.

 

https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederland/artikel/5217198/1-op-de-5-bezoekers-guido-weijers-voorstelling-deed-geen-test (source is in Dutch)

One of these events was a live show from a comedian, held for 500 people. This experiment - as far as I could read - had a couple different groups of people, with varying states of "corona guidelines". As far as I could tell, some groups had PPE, some didn't, etc.

 

Anyways, the idea was test them before, test them after and that is what the conclusion of the experiment would be based on.

Except, 20% of people (100 people!!!!) didn't have themselves tested after the event.

As I've heard, there was a designated place for people to have themselves tested - which for some was about 100KM away (which is a large distane, for a country that is like 200x350KM width and height) - but that seems like something they may have known before hand.

 

Now our corona minister (yes, that's a real title) was - obviously - mad about it and apparently made snide remarks to the comedian involved, the comedian made remarks on his side, apparently they called and they're good buddies now..

But the comedian did on TV say "welll, it doesn't matter some people didn't test afterwards! this experiment was about guidelines in the theater!" obviously missing the point completely that this would be very important information.

 

What a bunch of rubbish.