How will a third wave look?

[Tigerblue]

We could possibility at the start of a third wave. How do others think it'll look? I don't think restrictions will be lifted on 21st June. We still have a way to go with vaccines, but we're doing well so I'm really hoping we've got enough vaccinated to keep numbers much lower than the previous wave and the NHS can cope (especially with a backlog of operations/treatments which surely will have to be prioritised for some of the hospital beds). Also, we can manage to keep everything open - this is more hope on my part.

@Lucy788

I have read this thread and it's clear that everyone is thinking the double vaccination is the way out. My work colleague in her 20s received her 2nd AZ a little over 4 weeks ago (heart murmur). Her mother also had both. Last weekend it was her birthday and she followed the rules and met a small group of friends inside, a larger group of friends outside the following day and also saw her mum and boyfriend. Out of the 14 people she was with between Saturday and Monday, 8 of them tested positive last week including my friend and her mum who were both double jabbed. My friend is now approx 10 days in and is still very poorly, as is her mum (late 40s). Her friends are a mixture of poorly and totally symptomless. It worries me that the vaccination seems to have not helped them avoid illness at all really.

I’m reading more and more including from doctors saying they’re seeing increasing amounts of double jabbed patients who now have covid. Which is worrying me. They’re poorly enough to be seeing a doctor/going to hospital so just hoping they still have less severe symptoms than in the first peak.

How old are they? We have very few hospitalisations at the moment. The majority are over 80. I don’t think we’re going to be able to prevent older people from being hospitalised or dying from this.

@bumbleymummy

Do you think mutations only happen during transmission?

No, but if there isn't very much covid about there won't be as many mutations. I don't think that's particularly controversial.

Mutations are happening at random all the time as the virus replicates. If you have less covid about there won't be as many replications and therefore there won't be as many opportunities for a random set of mutations to occur that provides the virus with some sort of advantage

Do you think that the chances of a mutation occurring remain the same regardless of how much virus is in circulation?

I don't advocate for zero covid, I don't think that's realistic. Driving numbers of infections down via mass vaccination I think is definitely realistic.

Mutations are happening at random all the time as the virus replicates.

And the virus is replicating inside every patient. So it only take one person to potentially bring about a new variant that is more transmissible/resistant. So the idea that if we vaccinate the majority of people we will be able stop new variants arising is not correct. We will not be able to stop new variants.

Excuse typos!

@bumbleymummy

Mutations are happening at random all the time as the virus replicates.

And the virus is replicating inside every patient. So it only take one person to potentially bring about a new variant that is more transmissible/resistant. So the idea that if we vaccinate the majority of people we will be able stop new variants arising is not correct. We will not be able to stop new variants.

Yes, but surely logic suggests that more individuals infected means more chances that a mutation that has an impact will occur?!

Like buying lottery tickets, the more you buy the more chance you've got of winning?

The fact we can't eliminate the possibility of variants altogether doesn't mean we shouldn't limit the chances of one occurring? In addition mass vaccination will reduce transmission so even if a significant mutation occurs it's less likely to spread widely in a fully vaccinated population.

Unless it is a vaccine resistant mutation which is what people are worried about.

And the virus can still replicate in vaccinated patients before the immune response kicks in.

By the 108th wave sometime in 2027 when we're all even more fat, vitamin D deficient, ill-educated and unhealthy, I'm hoping that people might have noticed that this is all a scientifically illiterate and unethical nonsense. Or maybe people will look at Blair putting his tuppenceworth in and begin to wonder whether the man who lied about wmds might not be the best person to trust on any issue..

Well yes, that's exactly the point. We want fewer opportunities for mutation to occur so that there is less chance of a vaccine resistant variant arising.

Just because the vaccines cannot 100% eradicate the threat from variants doesn't mean that they don't 1) reduce the number of people infected and thus the opportunity for mutations to occur and 2) reduce transmission so that if a variant which is problematic does occur the chances of it spreading widely are reduced.

It seems as though people say things like "vaccines won't eradicate variants" or "you can still catch COVID and pass it on if you're vaccinated" to almost suggest that if you are not personally in a high risk group there is limited value in the vaccines and/or limited value in widespread vaccination. That is completely illogical to me. The more we put downward pressure on cases and mutations the better in my view. Widespread vaccination does that.

Except that replication can still occur in vaccinated people so there will always be opportunity for new variants to arise, regardless of vaccination status. And,if one of them is more vaccine resistant then the vaccine status of those around patients zero will make little difference.

So yes, while I agree that we should be vaccinating to reduce the risk of serious illness and death in vulnerable patients, I think the argument that we need to vaccinate everyone in order to stop mutations somewhat questionable. Particularly when that is the driving reason for vaccinating young people who are at low risk - and the emerging evidence of the risks of the AZ vaccine in that cohort.

@bumbleymummy

Except that replication can still occur in vaccinated people so there will always be opportunity for new variants to arise, regardless of vaccination status. And,if one of them is more vaccine resistant then the vaccine status of those around patients zero will make little difference.

So yes, while I agree that we should be vaccinating to reduce the risk of serious illness and death in vulnerable patients, I think the argument that we need to vaccinate everyone in order to stop mutations somewhat questionable. Particularly when that is the driving reason for vaccinating young people who are at low risk - and the emerging evidence of the risks of the AZ vaccine in that cohort.

I just fundamentally disagree with that position.

Virus replication in vaccinated individuals will be significantly reduced, transmission of the virus will be significantly reduced.

The more people we have who replicate the virus in lower numbers and pass on less virus the lower cases will go and the fewer variants we will have. Keeping millions of people completely susceptible to the virus will prolong the pandemic by years.

I'm not convinced we will need to vaccinate the whole population repeatedly (although we will have to see). I'd anticipate that once background immunity is established across the population only high risk groups will need boosters and this can be tied in with the flu jab.

I agree that we will move towards only vaccinating the vulnerable annually alongside the flu vaccine.

‘Significantly reducing’ is not eliminating so, as I said, we will not be able to prevent mutations arising. And contracting the virus confers immunity so just because someone is currently unvaccinated does not mean that they are not immune.

@bumbleymummy

I agree that we will move towards only vaccinating the vulnerable annually alongside the flu vaccine.

‘Significantly reducing’ is not eliminating so, as I said, we will not be able to prevent mutations arising. And contracting the virus confers immunity so just because someone is currently unvaccinated does not mean that they are not immune.

I have explicitly said that we won't completely eliminate variations via vaccination but I don't understand the logic that you shouldn't do what you can to minimise the number that arise?

We are not using AZ on the under 40's so the (very small) risk arising from that vaccine has been eliminated, or significantly reduced, in that age group.

If you were facing an army in a war and you were told you could wipe out half of that army you wouldn't say "well if we can't get rid of them all just don't bother, we'll take on the lot"? Would you?

I genuinely can't see the logic.

@Lucy788

I have read this thread and it's clear that everyone is thinking the double vaccination is the way out. My work colleague in her 20s received her 2nd AZ a little over 4 weeks ago (heart murmur). Her mother also had both. Last weekend it was her birthday and she followed the rules and met a small group of friends inside, a larger group of friends outside the following day and also saw her mum and boyfriend. Out of the 14 people she was with between Saturday and Monday, 8 of them tested positive last week including my friend and her mum who were both double jabbed. My friend is now approx 10 days in and is still very poorly, as is her mum (late 40s). Her friends are a mixture of poorly and totally symptomless. It worries me that the vaccination seems to have not helped them avoid illness at all really.

Poor her. This is really unlucky, though and it was always going to be seen in some cases, even without the Indian variant. Just like with flu, there will always be people who get jabbed and still either get very unwell or die. The data at this point does support the fact if you have both jabs, you are v unlikely to get Covid, then get symptoms and then get significantly unwell with it. You are in a minority if that's not the case.

Also what does 'very poorly' mean? Does she feel terrible? (I've had viruses pre-Covid that also made me feel extremely unwell) Has she needed hospital care? If not the latter, I do sympathise but life is never going to be something people sail through with no illnesses ever. I'm saying that as someone who'd love to never have a cold again, I'm terrible at being unwell.

I hope she recovers soon, anyway.

@Sunshinegirl82 I guess because, to use your analogy, one of those people is carrying a weapon that could potentially wipe out everyone and if the person carrying it gets killed, it just gets carried on by someone else anyway. The variants are always going to arise. You won’t stop them.

I disagree with vaccinating people against diseases that aren’t dangerous for them when the vaccine itself carries a risk. Currently, healthy people are being coerced/guilted into it on the promise that they’re ‘stopping deadly mutations’ which is a lie.

Do the maths:

"Lucy788

"My work colleague in her 20s received her 2nd AZ a little over 4 weeks ago (heart murmur). Her mother also had both.
Last weekend it was her birthday and she followed the rules and met a small group of friends inside, a larger group of friends outside the following day and also saw her mum and boyfriend. Out of the 14 people she was with between Saturday and Monday, 8 of them tested positive last week including my friend and her mum who were both double jabbed. My friend is now approx 10 days in and is still very poorly, as is her mum (late 40s). Her friends are a mixture of poorly and totally symptomless.

So last weekend your friend met up with several people and a few more the next day and then test positive last week. Ok fine but then you say she is 10 days on - so since a week is 7 days and it was last weekend then how the heck can she be 10 days ill.

Do people just come on here and make all sorts of crap up

[quote bumbleymummy]@Sunshinegirl82 I guess because, to use your analogy, one of those people is carrying a weapon that could potentially wipe out everyone and if the person carrying it gets killed, it just gets carried on by someone else anyway. The variants are always going to arise. You won’t stop them.

I disagree with vaccinating people against diseases that aren’t dangerous for them when the vaccine itself carries a risk. Currently, healthy people are being coerced/guilted into it on the promise that they’re ‘stopping deadly mutations’ which is a lie.[/quote]
But that assumes that a vaccine evading, much more deadly variant is inevitable? It's not. And it's much less likely if we vaccinate everyone.

Flu mutates faster than covid and we haven't had a devastating variant of flu in a hundred years, the vast majority of those we're pretty vaccination.

We can get away with only vaccinating at risk groups for flu because of the background immunity generated in the population by the fact that flu has been circulating forever and a day and so there is good baseline immunity in the population.

The vaccine provides a shortcut to that baseline immunity, with a lower risk profile at both an individual and population level. We can't achieve that baseline immunity without vaccinating everyone due to the novel nature of the virus.

The vaccine isn't compulsory and anyone is free not to have it but only vaccinating at risk groups won't get us to a point where we can remove restrictions. Given the risk profile I think most people are happy to take the vaccine for a better chance at normal life and to minimise their personal risk of covid.

No, I don’t think it’s inevitable at all - that’s why I said ‘potentially’.

Yes, I know flu mutates faster, I said that myself in an earlier post.

Re the background immunity, a high level of flu cases are actually asymptomatic each year so, similar to coronavirus, people are contributing to herd immunity by becoming infected but not becoming seriously ill.

only vaccinating at risk groups won't get us to a point where we can remove restrictions.

Why do you think this? We’ve been removing restrictions since March - well before we’d finished vaccinating the top 9 groups. We still haven’t double vaccinated the top 9 groups and look how many restrictions have been lifted. The point of the restrictions was to reduce the pressure on the NHS - that was why the JCVI prioritised the groups most likely to become seriously ill and require hospital care.

@bumbleymummy

No, I don’t think it’s inevitable at all - that’s why I said ‘potentially’.

Yes, I know flu mutates faster, I said that myself in an earlier post.

Re the background immunity, a high level of flu cases are actually asymptomatic each year so, similar to coronavirus, people are contributing to herd immunity by becoming infected but not becoming seriously ill.

only vaccinating at risk groups won't get us to a point where we can remove restrictions.

Why do you think this? We’ve been removing restrictions since March - well before we’d finished vaccinating the top 9 groups. We still haven’t double vaccinated the top 9 groups and look how many restrictions have been lifted. The point of the restrictions was to reduce the pressure on the NHS - that was why the JCVI prioritised the groups most likely to become seriously ill and require hospital care.

We still have fairly considerable restrictions in place. Limited indoor mixing, no large scale events, limits on numbers outside, no parties, no nightclubs, no theatres, no festivals, no weddings, no concerts, masks, I could go on.

We are seeing rising case numbers with these restrictions in place. The remaining restrictions won't be lifted on 21 June because it's evident that we need a higher proportion of the population to have both vaccines to keep numbers down.

I want restrictions to end as soon as possible, the quicker we vaccinate the population the better in terms of that. That's the reality in my view.

The vaccine is not compulsory, if younger age groups don't want it they are not being forced to have it but seeing as when appointments opened for the under 30s records were broken in terms of numbers booked there doesn't seem to be significant resistance in that age group so far.

I'm under 40 and everyone I know has been vaccinated except the children, no issues.

Rising case numbers but we’re not seeing the same level of hospitalisations/deaths - despite not having double vaccinated the top 9 vulnerable groups. So I disagree that we can’t lift restrictions if we only vaccinate the vulnerable because, even without having vaccinated them all, we have managed to lift a lot of them.

Younger people are being manipulated/coerced/guilted into it by the idea of vaccine passports and the lie that they’re preventing deadly mutant strains.

A bad bout of flu but without the deaths

There are no vaccine passports in the U.K., they don't exist. There is currently no difference to what a vaccinated or unvaccinated person can do.

The things that we can't yet do are the most high risk things in terms of spread.

I don't understand what the rationale would be for vaccinating the entire population if only vaccinating high risk groups would suffice?

I'm not aware of any country that has a strategy of only vaccinating high risk groups. Why would every country have decided it was necessary to vaccinate everyone if it actually wasn't necessary?

‘By the idea of’ - the idea has been floating around for months that having the vaccine will make it easier for people to travel/go to concerts/get back to normal etc.

I have heard through an academic connection that that AZ is 50% effective against this Delta strain and Pfizer is 90% which might help explain why despite the increasing vaccination rate there is an increasing number of positive cases etc.. a lot of the UK population has been AZ

Why not offer the vaccine to everyone if you have them? Seems a shame when other countries can’t even vaccinate their vulnerable though.