New strain stuff.....

[MistressoftheDarkSide]

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/boris-johnson-calls-crisis-meeting-to-discuss-response-to-new-covid-strain

So,it's just a variant, nothing to see here, blah blah blah..... I'm pretty sanguine about this stuff but dropping this late at night as a headline right now..... I'm getting mightily pissed off with the uncertainty and the subtle fear mongering......

Any thoughts?

I do think Sunak is a more balanced person he does economics very well

And Whitty (of course) and Vallance

Back to the virus, presumably, if I'm understanding correctly, the progress of vaccination, will lead to less people being infected; so slows down chance of mutations?

Yes, and actually anything that reduces the number of infections, ie all the social distancing measures, will reduce the chance of mutations and if the virus is less able to spread those mutations are less likely to cause a problem. Because the vaccination programme is only just getting going now, social distancing and hygiene measures are even more important.

Every time the virus replicates there’s a chance of mutation. More infections means more mutations. Not necessarily ones that are helpful to the virus or any worse for us but we should be trying to limit infection and spread of infection as much as possible.

Folks - the table of cases in councils is updated with todays data on www.covidmessenger.com

Bit later than usual today.... queuing in the rain for a turkey!!!

Re Matt Hancock. I knew him at school. He was a nice bloke back then- had a well off family (private school) but not stinking rich.
By the standards of this government he’s one of the better ones but still woefully out of his depth. As they all are IMO.

Thanks @PurpleDaisies . I was thinking of the factors that will be taken into account when vaccines might have to be tweaked for future delivery.

Glad this thread is still going, lots of great scientific insight and some excellent queries. I suspect we need more data to be able to answer them with confidence though, I've been searching around on the test accuracy issue with the new strains and can't find anything (although I'm not scientifically minded so perhaps using the wrong search terms). It could have serious implications for the back to school testing plan if a strain that is possibly more likely to infect kids is also evading detection on tests to a degree. Lateral flow tests aren't accurate enough as it is!

Thanks everyone so far for your input here, this is a brilliant thread!

@peridito

Can I repost this as it doesn't seem to have had a response ?

Apolgies if I missed it .

Lex345 Sun 20-Dec-20 21:25:24
Does COVID bind to the same receptors as the target receptors for ACE inhibitors like Ramipril? As Ramipril doesn't work for some people (I am not clear on why this is, whether it is issues with ACE binding or resistent hypertension-the latter renders my question mute), are there any studies on correlation between COVID severity/resistance to ACE inhibitors? I know some studies were done as to whether taking ACE inhibitors increased disease severity, but it was found that it did not increase the risk.

Thank you for this, I don't think it has, I am thinking it must be a very daft question or there is no answer?

@Theotherrudolph

I’m no scientist, but if there is one around, hypothetically (given enough time and resources), could we genetically engineer the coronavirus to become much less virulent but much more contagious, then set it off as a kind of contagious vaccine that crowds out the more virulent strains? Or is that total science fiction? I realise it’s probably so risky that it would never be allowed but wondering if it’s theoretically possible.

We can reach more people with the vaccine and there's the risk of further mutations with a live virus.

“We can reach more people with the vaccine and there's the risk of further mutations with a live virus.“

Yes, I’m sure it’s too risky to actually do. Thanks though.

Useful summary of the PHE report on the new UK variant:
mobile.twitter.com/Prof_Marciniak/status/1341317589922951168

@PurpleDaisies

Back to the virus, presumably, if I'm understanding correctly, the progress of vaccination, will lead to less people being infected; so slows down chance of mutations?

Yes, and actually anything that reduces the number of infections, ie all the social distancing measures, will reduce the chance of mutations and if the virus is less able to spread those mutations are less likely to cause a problem. Because the vaccination programme is only just getting going now, social distancing and hygiene measures are even more important.

Every time the virus replicates there’s a chance of mutation. More infections means more mutations. Not necessarily ones that are helpful to the virus or any worse for us but we should be trying to limit infection and spread of infection as much as possible.

As I understand it this is completely wrong. Each cell infected with the virus will typically host 10 000 base mutations ( 10000 reproductive cycles and 1:10000 mutations per base per cycle). This means the numbers are so high that having fewer infected people wont help really.

More info on 'UK' and 'SA' strains twitter.com/firefoxx66/status/1341793323535757312?s=19

Ok I have a query. Was speaking to my DD yesterday and he said he heard Tony Blair say the following. That given the Pfeizer vaccine at once dose gives 82% protection (it gives 95% at two doses) - then why don’t we vaccinate double the number of people with it by only giving one dose. Because 82% effectiveness is enough at a population level. And it is better to vaccinate more people at a lower efficacy. I thought it was a great point but had never heard the 82% figure before and am wondering if vaccine scarcity anyway is an issue given we have the Oxford vaccine coming on board. Anyone?

The vaccine is not licensed for one dose so would apparently need to go through the regulator again.

@SRY A very big number can still be half of another very big number. If vaccination /distancing managed to halve the rate of infections, then that would halve the opportunities for mutations surely?

@MadameBlobby yep have just read that now. And apparently it is 91% effective at one dose. The second dose adds just another 4% effectiveness. But we are in a such a crisis surely the regulator can look again.

@Nc135 hopefully someone with a science background can explain further but from what was discussed on this thread yesterday I think there are two main issues with Tony Blair's suggestion:

1. The efficacy of the vaccine after one dose declines significantly with time, the second dose is needed to 'top up' and to make the immune system develop a more long lasting response.

1. Changing the dosing regimes after it has been approved by the relevant bodies is an enormous ethical no no. It's vital important that programmes are rolled out as agreed by the regulators, and to do otherwise undermines their authority and the professionalism of the medical profession.

Oh and finally, just my personal opinion is that Tony Blair was responsible for an appalling tragedy, due to wilful mistruths and assumptions without any actual evidence, so it is very worrying that he is still given airtime.

The one dose suggestion does seem to be gaining a bit of of traction. The Telegraph is reporting that the government is considering it. I think the idea is that you would hope to give the second dose eventually, to help make immunity last longer, but not until everyone in need has had at least one dose.

They would need full (time-delaying) trials to accurately measure the effectiveness of a different dosing regime, but these wouldn't necessarily be required for government to give emergency permission for single doses. There's no issue with safety/side effects to need a new trial for, and they could decide that the risk of immunity diminishing over time is one they can monitor (seeing how many immunised people catch it) and is worth taking if it doubles the speed at which you can vaccinate people. We will have to monitor the issue of waning immunity anyway, as the trials obviously can't tell us how long immunity lasts, or whether it'll work against future strains of the virus. So this is a manageable risk.

The scientists who trialled the two dose regime were charged with trying to find the optimal regime, not to weigh up the best option in conditions of shortage and a very urgent need to go fast. They didn't really do much to find the optimal regime anyway as they only did full trials with the two doses 21 days apart option and haven't tried out other options.

It was overruled for reasons Chaotic outlines. I can’t see how it can gain traction as approval is on a fixed basis.

And Blair should stop meddling and taking up people’s time with his unsubstantiated ideas.

To be fair @Marsha - he does have the backing of David Salisbury, who was head of vaccination at the department of health previously. So it doesn't seem entirely without scientific interest

Yes I saw David Salisbury backs it up scientifically.

Trialling a different dosage regime, and presenting it to regulator for approval is fine.

Just cutting the dosage in half isn't.

And Blair's assumptions on why we are vaccination are at odds with all the statements by the government and by scientists about protecting the vulnerable so we can all see an end to restrictions.

Making healthy young adults who are already very low risk even less likely to develop the illness isn't going to remove the need for restrictions on society at large, including the vaccinated young people themselves as we don't yet known it full sterilising immunity is conferred. The longer the restrictions, the greater the damage to the economy and the longer the hiatus on non covid work by NHS. What he is calling for would lead to a considerably worse outcome for us all than sticking with the current plan

I’m glad this thread is still running. It’s good to understand the data!

I live in a London borough that’s suddenly spiked.. 3 cases DD’s class came to light yesterday. All asymptomatic.. parents more poorly but not seriously.. it feels a bit like March and I’m wondering if antibodies are beginning to wane.

I said this up thread, and I’m still on the fence.. if this whips around the borough and the majority catch it but are not overly impacted then surely this is a natural vaccine and will benefit us in January?

I’m not suggesting for one minute we all start hugging someone clinically vulnerable but is there not a benefit in ‘healthy’ people getting exposed and developing immunity so we can keep the country running?

Just to be clear, I’m a careful rule follower, I’m just wondering if this the wrong strategy now..

This is a good follow for latest on SA variant info.

mobile.twitter.com/Tuliodna