How much further can covid mutate?

[Thelm]

I’m just wondering. Is there a limit as to how far a virus can mutate? Are we going to still be in a race to contain it in five years time?

I just don’t know how this will end.

All you have done on the thread is giggling like a child so that comes as no surprise really. Rather than address salient points relating to the mutation of covid ( which is a topic well beyond your juvenile mind) you find terminology relating to whether a scientist can be struck off or not funny as you hehehe. If a scientist works for a government department as role as health minister, you're saying he can't be fired which to me is "struck off". It's a phrase , try not to let it consume your tiny brain as you continually troll the thread... have you no views on covid mutation yourself or do you not know what the word mutation means?

I nearly gave a list of examples of professions you can be struck off from but I thought that would be rather pedantic and an insult to @SallyBasingstoke's intelligence. I assumed she understood what it meant or would at least google it in response to my post... rather than desperately trying to find a scientist who had been struck off

Being struck off isn't the same as being fired. There are some professions, eg doctor, nurse, lawyer, social worker, where there is such potential for abuse of power/trust and the consequences of mistakes are so bad that you need to be registered with a governing body for the profession. Being struck off the register is more than being fired from your job, it is a ban from working in that profession.

The two examples you gave were biomedical scientists working in NHS hospitals in roles that require them to be registered with the Health and Care Professions Council. "Scientists" can't be struck off, however, some scientists have jobs that require professional registration and could be struck off. In theory, they can still work as a scientist in a role that doesn't require registration.

If a scientist works for a government department as role as health minister, you're saying he can't be fired which to me is "struck off"

Health ministers aren't usually scientists, they are politicians. Members of SAGE could be fired. Some of them could be struck off for professional misconduct as they are also medical doctors but it would depend on what they had done, certainly not for supporting a zero COVID strategy. You could probably be struck off for breaking lockdown to meet your mistress but Professor Neil Ferguson isn't a medical doctor or any other registered professional.

More importantly, it is normal and good for scientists to disagree and challenge each other. Science is rarely black and white. You might like to read this:

www.researchgate.net/profile/James-Shanteau/publication/262915496_Why_Do_Experts_Disagree/links/0c9605393b8c6c2f35000000/Why-Do-Experts-Disagree.pdf

To answer the question, "Does virus mutation change your feelings about how you'd like things to be handled?" I change my mind frequently as new information/data comes to light, as I am sure do the scientists advising the government, that's how science works.

@Ostara212

What do posters think would be done differently if the virus affected children?

They would have sorted the pretty easy mitigations they have refused to do in schools (such as rapid investment in ventilation improvements).

I think our behaviour would have been different if dc affected more, not just mitigations

But hard to say beyond a quick think. You’d probably also get weighing up of risks so depends on the variables

Yeah I don’t believe @strangeshapedpotato is a scientist. The real scientists are so cautious they rarely hypothesise without buckets of hard evidence. They are often frustratingly unable to tell us what’s going to happen, and keep an open mind, but this poster does like to throw the wild claims about like they are fact when actually there seem to be many inaccuracies, obvious to even to non-scientists. However, scientists are human and this emotional rollercoaster is getting to us all frustratingly.

I agree scientists tend to be very measured with language. I had missed that that pp had claimed they were one however.

One reason I like listening to CMO, CSA or the S&T committee

I've no idea why so many posters listen to this particular poster.

I think it’s called blinding people by science 😂

I don't think @strangeshapedpotato claimed to be a scientist at any point. SallyBasingstoke asked me if I had any scientific qualifications/background and has then decided to start making wild, sarcastic comments about strangeshapedpotato and I masquerading as Oxford dons.

This is a Cheshire cat. I am a chesire cat @SallyBasingstoke, after my DS's cute childhood nickname for our odd looking moggy he thought had magical powers As it happens, he is dyslexic but he has just completed a BSc and is about to start his clinical years at med school. Being a poor speller is not a sign of lack of intelligence, education, knowledge or a barrier to being a scientist

@everythingthelighttouches
I suggest that you consider one research programme in the round - such as meta-analysis carried out by Dr Tess Lawrie.

There are those that support the use of therapeutics in combination with vaccination. Eg.

But that would be for therapeutics and a fully licensed vaccine.

For a new vaccine to to granted emergency licence there needs to be no therapeutic. Hence the deafening silence in MSM and bans on social media.

Meanwhile back in the real world in the rich west, the rich have had a good pandemic and increased power and wealth.

Sadly, many have died (but they were old/sick and were going to die anyway) or lost livelihoods, homes, education but professionals can work from home, homeowners are quids in and private schools can deliver remote education.

So the pandemic has increased inequality. The inevitable consequence is an increase in social disorder. Not people being pissed off they can't go to a pub but more serious stuff like youth/post 50 unemployment, homelessness, access to healthcare etc.

It didn't have to be this way.

Where has strangeshapedpotato claimed to be a scientist, or been rude to anyone other than sally, who, let's face it, is so spectacularly fucking rude she deserves everything she gets.

I think people just feel uncomfortable with her point of view and are lashing out

Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, I’ve just had a thought. Maybe this news about vaccinating teens IS part of a plan to go for zero covid!?

[quote KOKOagainandagain]@everythingthelighttouches
I suggest that you consider one research programme in the round - such as meta-analysis carried out by Dr Tess Lawrie.

There are those that support the use of therapeutics in combination with vaccination. Eg.

But that would be for therapeutics and a fully licensed vaccine.

For a new vaccine to to granted emergency licence there needs to be no therapeutic. Hence the deafening silence in MSM and bans on social media.

Meanwhile back in the real world in the rich west, the rich have had a good pandemic and increased power and wealth.

Sadly, many have died (but they were old/sick and were going to die anyway) or lost livelihoods, homes, education but professionals can work from home, homeowners are quids in and private schools can deliver remote education.

So the pandemic has increased inequality. The inevitable consequence is an increase in social disorder. Not people being pissed off they can't go to a pub but more serious stuff like youth/post 50 unemployment, homelessness, access to healthcare etc.

It didn't have to be this way. [/quote]
agh if this is the ivermectin meta analysis AGAIN

a meta analysis does not provide anything useful if the existing studies are biased or have methodological flaws - as is the current state of the evidence for ivermectin

all you are doing is amplifying biased results, it's not adding anything meaningful to the debate

"rubbish in, rubbish out", indeed

As I'm sure you know RCT are not done for off licence drugs. Because there's no money in it. So doctors in the field have to research. With no research grant. Why do you think that is?

@Ostara212

OP if you are still reading

This is a real question, O'm not having a dig or setting a trap

Does virus mutation change your feelings about how you'd like things to be handled?

Hi - I am still reading. I’m not sure if it would change how I’d like it to be handled. But for me certainly it would have a impact on how I act.

If there is an exit strategy within a reasonable timeframe (so covid will not mutate too much more and we can effectively keep on top of things with the vaccine) then I’d be more inclined to comply with the rules.

If it is just going to keep mutating and we end up stuck in this seemingly never ending cycle of lockdowns then I feel like we may as well just get on with things. We are all doomed if this is the case. I don’t think we can reasonably be expected to lock down indefinitely and give up our lives forever.

I don’t know perhaps I’m being over dramatic but I’m just feeling like this is a long hard slog. As soon as I start to feel a little bit more positive I feel like some awful news arises.

@KOKOagainandagain

As I'm sure you know RCT are not done for off licence drugs. Because there's no money in it. So doctors in the field have to research. With no research grant. Why do you think that is?

@KOKOagainandagainI'm not sure if this was directed at me, but what on earth?

a) doctors can't "research" by trying out drugs on sick patients based on their personal beliefs - beyond the ethics you're not going to get any meaningful results by doing this

b) of course RCTs occur with "off licence" (although do you mean off patent?) drugs - that's exactly what the solidarity and recovery RCTs are doing - trialing existing medications to see if any were beneficial to be repurposed for COVID. Several viable, cheap treatments have been identified this way like the corticosteroids

I'm in NZ and have found this thread a fascinating read. What a shame to have it somewhat derailed by the nonsensical rantings of Sally. IME people like this are often reacting from a place of fear. Far better to deny what's happening than face the grim reality of the situation we're facing. And who can blame them?

I agree with a pp that the UK could have also pursued a zero covid strategy if they'd reacted early enough last year. But I think it was just down to luck who was advising government at that time. We were very lucky to have Michael Baker who strongly advocated for an elimination strategy and also lucky to have a government who quickly acted on his advice. At that time it really felt like a brave and radical step to take. Incidentally Michael Baker is still advocating other countries advocate zero covid policies (link below). This is obviously not easily achievable for many countries now but I agree with pp that it could have been within the UK's grasp fairly recently with proper border controls and an effective track and trace system in place.

The big question for NZ is what's next? Our vaccination programme is moving fairly slowly so it doesn't look like the borders will be opening until next year at the very earliest. On the other hand our DG of health has started to talk about how we must learn to live with this virus as it becomes endemic. I'm watching developments in the UK closely to see how effectively vaccination helps combat the spread of new variants.

www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2021/jan/28/all-countries-should-pursue-a-covid-19-elimination-strategy-here-are-16-reasons-why

if they'd reacted early enough last year

When in your opinion would early enough have been for U.K.?

What date here versus when NZ acted.

When it was clear things were going to shit in Italy. So February? Before the half term holidays. There was a thread on here around that time discussing this when people could clearly see what was going to happen and screaming why aren't the government doing anything? They should have closed the borders then.