Feeling a bit duped about the seriousness of Covid....

[mostwonderfultime]

Found out my district of 55,000 people there have been 156 confirmed covid cases since March. Now I hear there is an enquiry into the over reporting of Covid deaths in England. Average death rate has now lower than average indicating many people who died from Covid would probably died in the next month or so. No surge in Covid cases or deaths since relaxing lockdown measures (I know about Leicester, but we all know reasons why they have more cases and again they haven't had a spike in deaths).
In the meantime, the economy is screwed, Kids have been off school for months, best friends business has gone bust.

@Jrobhatch29

"We are at the very beginning of this pandemic. In the absence of a cure or vaccine, it will last at least two years, probably longer because we can't build up long-term immunity to human coronaviruses."

False.

www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.26.115832v1.full

www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z

Thus, infection with betacoronaviruses induces strong and long-lasting T cell immunity to the structural protein NP. Understanding how pre-existing ORF-1-specific T cells present in the general population impact susceptibility and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is of paramount importance for the management of the current COVID-19 pandemic.

SARS-CoV-2 belongs to Coronaviridae, a family of large RNA viruses infecting many animal species. Six other coronaviruses are known to infect humans. Four of them are endemically transmitted and cause common cold (OC43, HKU1, 229E and NL63), while SARS-CoV (defined from now as SARS-CoV-1) and MERS-CoV have caused limited epidemics of severe pneumonia6. All of them trigger antibody and T cell responses in infected patients: however, antibody levels appear to wane relatively quicker than T cells.

These findings demonstrate that virus-specific memory T cells induced by betacoronanvirus infection are long-lasting, which supports the notion that COVID-19 patients would develop long-term T cell immunity. Furthermore, our findings also raise the intriguing possibility that infection with related viruses can also protect from or modify the pathology caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Quoting from papers you obviously don't fully understand doesn't not qualify you to make broad brush statements such as 'false'.

Short-lived immunity to human coronaviruses is established science. If you've studied microbiology, you'll know this. If you haven't, I'd recommend Chapter 60 of Medical Microbiology as a good foundation:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7782/

The recent Columbia University study of reinfection by the endemic coronaviruses demonstrates immunity to human coronaviruses is short-lived and lasts an average of 9 months:

www.columbia.edu/~jls106/galanti_shaman_ms_supp.pdf

These findings have been echoed by a seperate study carried out by the University of Amsterdam:
www.sciencetimes.com/articles/25785/20200522/study-reveals-coronavirus-immunity-lasts-6-months-casting-doubts-passports.htm

I don't think any serious immunologist or virologist is claiming immunity to coronaviruses is anything other than temporary. The only question is how long temporary immunity lasts. My belief is that SARS-CoV02 seems to be behaving like 229E and that we should expect reinfection to peak in around 9 months. But that's an educated guess.

A paper cut will provoke a T-cell response. It doesn't mean you have long-term immunity to a virus.

Don't suggest the lancet isn't a reputable journal. Yes Wakefield got one over on them but it's ridiculous to knock their credibility on that basis. There are reputable journals and this is one of them. Unless you don't want to believe that for a personal agenda of your own, in which case don't bother opening the lancet or anything else.

As for 'randoms on the internet', plenty of posters on this thread have given scientific explanations of why a vaccine won't be ready any time soon.

And I choose to put more faith in what’s being reported in the scientific community

I have no idea how long a vaccine will take, there are no guarantees, but there is good reason to be hopeful that it will be less than two years for all the reasons I’ve already outlined.

The Oxford vaccine has so far performed as they hoped it would. We all await next stage trials with interest.

Treatment options are also progressing. I have every faith we’ll be on a much better position soon. You believe what you like.

Jrobhatch29

Yes I read it. I couldn't see where they planned to administer the vaccine to healthcare workers and the vulnerable this winter though?

I did also see this in the conclusion

Limitations of this study include the short follow-up reported to date, the small number of participants in the prime-boost group, and single-blinded design, although staff undertaking clinical evaluation and laboratory staff all remained blinded. Additionally, the study findings are not easily generalisable, as this is a first-in-human study of fairly young and healthy volunteers, the majority of whom were white. Further studies are required to assess the vaccine in various population groups including older age groups, those with comorbidities, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations. The participants recruited in this study will be followed up for at least 1 year and further safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity (in addition to efficacy) results will be reported when data are available

So they report the need to do further studies across age groups, ethnicities, co morbidities and geographical areas - all by this winter???

The Lancet needs to give Climbdad a call. As he seriously knows it all.

March was actually the second wave

How could it have been? Why would the magical first wave have just disappeared without any action being taken to control it? It's taken 3 months of lockdown to control it, so it makes no sense to think it somehow burned itself out or mutated itself into disappearing in that mythical first wave last year.

I think, more likely, it started end of last year and no one noticed it, hence the March wave was the crest of the first wave, just that it took a few months to reach that level rather than a few weeks as assuming it only started in January. If so, that's positive as it took longer than we thought to spread to its' peak, so that gives us hope the second wave will also take a long time to grow, and thus give us more chance to halt it via localised lock downs etc.

It has been one big mess from the beginning.

Really is time to get back to normal now before we cause even more damage to our health, economy, children's education...the list goes on.

A slight tangent but I was reading a very interesting article about how medical research and the vaccine research is being presented. They said the initial findings were not making any great claims. The press release issued by the scientists wasn't making any great claims. But then the media write articles (and it included some of the medical and science media in this) that lose all the necessary nuance.
They were suggesting that scientists actually need to be more responsible in publicising their research and they shouldn't issue press releases about every step in the process because it implies there is 'big news' when quite often it's too soon to draw any solid conclusions at all.

So they report the need to do further studies across age groups, ethnicities, co morbidities and geographical areas - all by this winter???

Stage 3 trials are about to start in Brazil and SA. They expect a much clearer understanding by September.

Don't suggest the lancet isn't a reputable journal. Yes Wakefield got one over on them but it's ridiculous to knock their credibility on that basis. There are reputable journals and this is one of them. Unless you don't want to believe that for a personal agenda of your own, in which case don't bother opening the lancet or anything else

We don't need to disbelieve the Lancet. That paper in the Lancet is telling you that they do not have a vaccine that produces immunity. It also goes on to say that different labs have obtained wildly different results, which isn't massively surprising in the context of a new disease and differing approaches to vaccine development, but it is another indication that we are a very long way from knowing how to induce immunity reliably.

OP, stop being so regional and look at America's figures. Are you really so disillusioned with covid's virulence that you'd go have a holiday in one of the hot spots? I expect not because that would be unnecessary exposure to a risk that you know is genuine. I find your OP extremely offensive given how many of our elderly have been lost in excess deaths. Do you mean you personally are alright and we should all feel aggrieved because we're still alive when we were supposed to have succumbed? Well, many weren't as lucky as you and are grieving the loss of family members who died long before their time. Think about that.

@PenelopePitstop49

The WHO have already stated that asymptomatic transmission is impossible, so if those who have symptoms isolate, there is no further risk to public health. I literally want to scream now in frustration.

This is a complete distortion of the truth regarding Covid transmission, and a potentially dangerous if it encourages old and vulnerable people to think they are not at risk if not around someone displaying Covid symptoms.

“Asymptomatic“ people may be less infectious (though nowhere is saying it’s impossible), but many “pre-symptomatic“ people appear to be highly infectious. That’s exactly why Covid is so hard to quash!

Mrs Your explanation is unnecessary, I was responding to a different post. You're coming across rather... patronizing. Thanks for explaining what "that article" is telling me. I wasn't aware you had any idea of my understanding or response to the service article. Are you telepathic?

that

It is possible to recognise that the lancet is a reputable journal and understand the content!!

The WHO have already stated that asymptomatic transmission is impossible, so if those who have symptoms isolate, there is no further risk to public health. I literally want to scream now in frustration.

Citation?

March was actually the second wave

If that’s the case, the first wave was no more than a microscopic ripple. Deaths were “below” average through the autumn and winter, despite zero social distancing or awareness of the fact that Covid was endemic. The idea we’re in the second wave doesn’t bear any scrutiny.

@LaurieMarlow

The Lancet needs to give Climbdad a call. As he seriously knows it all.

Yep 4 months of googling makes someone an expert. @ClimbDad so why are they finding an immune response to SARs 17 years later? Maybe your text book is out of date.

@LaurieMarlow

So they report the need to do further studies across age groups, ethnicities, co morbidities and geographical areas - all by this winter???

Stage 3 trials are about to start in Brazil and SA. They expect a much clearer understanding by September.

That will give at most two months data. I find it hard to believe that from that they'll then implement mass vaccination of the most vulnerable in the country without knowing how long immunity will reliably last for (who am I kidding, it's a Tory government - they won't bat an eyelid at risking the lives of thousands of the most vulnerable).

I'm assuming they'll be testing it for immunocompromised patients too, to a)check it's safe and b) that it provokes an immune response and the same for elderly people or do you think they'll just give it to us and hope for the best?

Who knows? I'll believe it when it happens.

The NHS closing down for everything except Covid perhaps?

Which has not (yet) been proven to be an issue. In fact, it hasn’t yet to be proven that the NHS en masse has stopped treating anything but Covid.

I wrote the other day about how in 3 cases just in my family alone, diagnosis and treatment for non Covid related issues has happened. I also know of two families who have had kids in for non emergency surgeries. Perhaps it’s an England/Scotland difference in treatment, but we’ve had the same issues with excess deaths as England has so it would seem thats a red herring.

If that’s the case, the first wave was no more than a microscopic ripple

Yes this. I think the notion of being in the second wave is ridiculous. We’d never have noticed the first.

Essentially, lockdown was not about saving lives. It was about saving the NHS which in turn saves lives
As far as I can see the NHS never came anywhere near being overwhelmed and the Nightingale hospitals were empty. I'm not at all convinced lockdown to such an extent was ever needed.

So basically you're pissed off because lockdown worked? If you follow the same reasoning then anyone who survived cancer because of chemo should be pissed off because they had chemo.

^
This

When things were spiralling out of control, we locked down to dramatically cut transmission, and stop deaths reaching the 250-500,000 estimates. Even then 50,000+ people died with only a fraction of the population infected.

I find it hard to believe that from that they'll then implement mass vaccination of the most vulnerable in the country without knowing how long immunity will reliably last for

Well they won’t know that for years, will they?

However if it gives some immunity and is safe, they’ll press on I expect and a lot of work will still need to be done, but it will be a start.

If people are expecting a fully understood, fully functioning, perfect vaccine then no that won’t be available. But the point the Oxford team are making is that some immunity, even if short term, could make all the difference in handling the disease while we keep progressing our understanding.

It may be a vaccine that gets administered every year. Who knows?

@LaurieMarlow

The South African and Brazilian trials began last month with results expected "hopefully before the end of this year" according to this: www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-trial-oxford-expands-south-africa-brazil/#app