NWR new zero tolerance covid thread

This almost deserves its own thread. Not conclusive but - very important news the potential cause of MS


And...moderna is already working on a vaccine.


I have been, perhaps fairly, accused of excessive optimism in these parts. But truly - isn't science wonderful.
Have you downloaded the paper?!
 
Leon
Indeed!... but only initial findings in Phase 1... fingers crossed...

Gareth,
Criticizing the extreme scenario forecast may lead to diversion and loss of focus on the pandemic. Plus your analogy does not look pertinent when one looks at reality

Consider available real data:
The worst phase early 2021 returned up to 1000-1500 deaths a day for a few weeks for the whole UK with a non vaccinated population ...
We now have 2-300 deaths a day for a few weeks with a vaccinated population for the whole UK. While the extreme scenario was only an extreme scenario, it is clear no one can claim Omicron is a feeble virus. Without vaccination, I am not sure what the daily death record would be... it would not be 10 times less than early 2021 unless the vaccine amplifies problems.
We have a ratio of 1 to 5 in number of deaths: what share is thanks to vaccine and what share is Omicron feebleness?

There is a consensus that Omicron is more contagious and less potent.
There is also consensus that vaccines are useful and protective.
However, Omicron should not be underestimated given the current observed level of casualties
 
Leon
Indeed!... but only initial findings in Phase 1... fingers crossed...

Gareth,
Criticizing the extreme scenario forecast may lead to diversion and loss of focus on the pandemic. Plus your analogy does not look pertinent when one looks at reality

Consider available real data:
The worst phase early 2021 returned up to 1000-1500 deaths a day for a few weeks for the whole UK with a non vaccinated population ...
We now have 2-300 deaths a day for a few weeks with a vaccinated population for the whole UK. While the extreme scenario was only an extreme scenario, it is clear no one can claim Omicron is a feeble virus. Without vaccination, I am not sure what the daily death record would be... it would not be 10 times less than early 2021 unless the vaccine amplifies problems.
We have a ratio of 1 to 5 in number of deaths: what share is thanks to vaccine and what share is Omicron feebleness?

There is a consensus that Omicron is more contagious and less potent.
There is also consensus that vaccines are useful and protective.
However, Omicron should not be underestimated given the current observed level of casualties
I've linked below to the worst case, mid case and most optimistic case as reported by SAGE to HMG on the 31st December showing modelling for the Omnicron wave. Again you can see from the numbers you quote from last year that the various modelling SAGE did was miles off. The lowest estimate is still above what actually resulted.

Based on this data at peak there would be 5721, 2868 or 591 deaths by death date for worst, mid and lowest scenarios. We have only broached 200 deaths per day for five days in the last few weeks. We have never been anywhere near 300. So your range is innacurate.

I have also never said it is a feeble virus? Again you are stuck in binary thinking. There is a range of seriousness and it is clear that Omnicron is at the very low end compared to what SAGE was modelling. This is good news. Please don't conflate that with not taking the virus seriously or seeing 200 deaths a day as anything other than regrettable.
Screenshot 2022-01-14 at 18.21.22.png
Screenshot 2022-01-14 at 18.21.28.png
Screenshot 2022-01-14 at 18.21.34.png
Screenshot 2022-01-14 at 18.36.45.png
 
Last edited:
First rule of modelling: garbage in, garbage out. Indeed, the only real purpose of models is to gauge the sensitivity of outcomes to variables. The focus on outcomes in isolation that we have seen with covid (and brexit economic) models is completely ridiculous. In layman's terms, models show what you want them to show ie you believe omicron will be “bad” then you input variables and scenarios accordingly and “hey presto!”, it’s bad. What Imperial have done though wth their December Omicron models is “all time” bad.
 

Tom Cannavan

Administrator
All,

I have grown increasingly troubled by this thread (compounded by the Djokovic thread), dominating the UK WINE FORUM. For the past few weeks both have been the most active threads with most contributions, thus always in the top half dozen threads whenever I visit.

This is a wine forum. I really, really want us to get back on track and make wine and the very closely associated topics like food and wine travel, the focus. That should be the main purpose for any of us being part of this community. I can only imagine many prospective new members, with a love for wine, have been put off joining us recently.

I am absolutely not saying that I want to ban all NWR threads, but they should be the exception, and they should not become the focus for anyone.

Yesterday I contacted half a dozen people who have been the main contributors to this thread and asked them to think twice about whether they really had to add any more to the 4,255 posts it contains already. Hasn't everything been said? Haven't we all stated our positions clearly enough? Do we not realise that some people with different opinions will never be persuaded?

All have agreed to either refrain from adding more posts, or to very seriously limit thier future involvement. I would like everyone to adopt the same attitude please. There really, really is nothing more that is new or particularly helpful that can be added to the 4,255 posts already made.

I do not want to close or delete this thread (yet) but I would be very happy to see it naturally dwindle and disappear from its permanent position near the top of the forum simply by people stopping posting to it.
 
First rule of modelling: garbage in, garbage out. Indeed, the only real purpose of models is to gauge the sensitivity of outcomes to variables.
I have worked a lot with computer modelling in a few different areas, and often heard that said. But if it is a bad model I am not convinced that even the sensitivity to variables will be correct/useful either. Though I guess the relative sensitivity to variables might be more reliable that the predictions themselves.

The best thing I could say about models is that they encapsulate and document people's knowledge of what is being modelled, and make clear the assumptions and methods that are used. Thus they provide the opportunity for people to challenge the assumptions and methods used, and develop improvements.

They also provide tools for decision making. Maybe the models are not great, but what is the alternative? Finger in the air? Ignore the way the natural world behaves, and act according to religion or political ideology, and let the person that shouts loudest and has the most mates get his (sic) way?
 
Last edited:
@Mike Humphreys - IIRC you mentioned a good source of FFP2 masks and a discount code. I think I've found the website but not the code. Do you have it, by any chance?

Is it this one?

Yes they are pretty good. Heavier style but last a while and good quality. It was Tom C who found a code that still seems fo work at 70%.
£7 is a very fair price. There is a 40% code listed on site but try this from Tom.

“Code MASKUPNOW will take 70% off the Churchill or Admiral designs currently.”
 

Tom Cannavan

Administrator
Yes they are pretty good. Heavier style but last a while and good quality. It was Tom C who found a code that still seems fo work at 70%.
£7 is a very fair price. There is a 40% code listed on site but try this from Tom.

“Code MASKUPNOW will take 70% off the Churchill or Admiral designs currently.”

Yes, the masks are very substantial. I think because of that they might be too hot for wearing on a long flight or train journey for example, but they fit really well and if the FFP2 certification is genuine (no reason to think it's not) then for me they are a good choice.
 
I read Tom's post about not to add fuel to this thread and I fully appreciate his decision.
At the meantime, he did not send pm to me asking me to reduce posting (I also very appreciate that).
I (maybe arrogantly) assume that I can still share some carefully picked non-political, new scientific finding? If this post is better for political forum I will happily transfer it.

Context:
PCR data shows that at least in early days, there is no much difference on the viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, just that vaccinated people have their viral load dropped quicker. Hence there was some doubt on the effectiveness of vaccine pass, being partially quoted by some in this thread (Franco-Paredes, Lancet Infectious Disease).

However, PCR method detects genome copies. It is common for viruses to produce inactive particles with only low percentage infectious. We still use PCR method because 1) it's easier than growing virus in the lab 2) it still reflects how the virus being released. We know since 2020, Covid patient (if not hospitalised) would be less infectious after day 7, even their viral load is still high. It seems that immunity (for natural infection, antibody raises at day 7) can change that infectivity. I assumed vaccine can do similar thing but there is no much evidence, until very recently:


The Geneva group compared vaccinated and unvaccinated people viral loads (for Delta variant), they found that for PCR (genome copies), indeed at first 3 days the viral loads have little difference, only after that vaccinated people have more significant drop.
However, when checking only infectious particles, vaccinated people have lower infectious viral loads from the beginning.
(Note that it is a log10 chart, it doesn't look huge in chart C but it's actually 5-10 folds difference)
The authors also did statistic analysis to confirm this.

1642766929963.png

That's Delta. How about Omicron? I assume the authors had no time to do the same to Omicron yet, but they did an extra experiment to compare the ratio of genome copies/infectious loads between Delta and Omicron in breakthrough infection cases (all got vaccinated). It shows that Omicron doesn't have a different ratio, which logically means that this infectivity decrease effect should be similar for Omicron.

1642766960995.png

My take:
This is still pending peer review, but if those data is not fake, it looks quite convincing. It shows that PCR viral load is not the only indicator and vaccination is more useful than PCR number shows. Even for Omicron, vaccine not only prevent severe illness and death, but still can contribute in reducing transmission. That means it's not only helping oneself, but also helping others.
 
I read Tom's post about not to add fuel to this thread and I fully appreciate his decision.
At the meantime, he did not send pm to me asking me to reduce posting (I also very appreciate that).
I (maybe arrogantly) assume that I can still share some carefully picked non-political, new scientific finding? If this post is better for political forum I will happily transfer it.

Context:
PCR data shows that at least in early days, there is no much difference on the viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, just that vaccinated people have their viral load dropped quicker. Hence there was some doubt on the effectiveness of vaccine pass, being partially quoted by some in this thread (Franco-Paredes, Lancet Infectious Disease).

However, PCR method detects genome copies. It is common for viruses to produce inactive particles with only low percentage infectious. We still use PCR method because 1) it's easier than growing virus in the lab 2) it still reflects how the virus being released. We know since 2020, Covid patient (if not hospitalised) would be less infectious after day 7, even their viral load is still high. It seems that immunity (for natural infection, antibody raises at day 7) can change that infectivity. I assumed vaccine can do similar thing but there is no much evidence, until very recently:


The Geneva group compared vaccinated and unvaccinated people viral loads (for Delta variant), they found that for PCR (genome copies), indeed at first 3 days the viral loads have little difference, only after that vaccinated people have more significant drop.
However, when checking only infectious particles, vaccinated people have lower infectious viral loads from the beginning.
(Note that it is a log10 chart, it doesn't look huge in chart C but it's actually 5-10 folds difference)
The authors also did statistic analysis to confirm this.

View attachment 23247

That's Delta. How about Omicron? I assume the authors had no time to do the same to Omicron yet, but they did an extra experiment to compare the ratio of genome copies/infectious loads between Delta and Omicron in breakthrough infection cases (all got vaccinated). It shows that Omicron doesn't have a different ratio, which logically means that this infectivity decrease effect should be similar for Omicron.

View attachment 23248

My take:
This is still pending peer review, but if those data is not fake, it looks quite convincing. It shows that PCR viral load is not the only indicator and vaccination is more useful than PCR number shows. Even for Omicron, vaccine not only prevent severe illness and death, but still can contribute in reducing transmission. That means it's not only helping oneself, but also helping others.
Thank you, Po-yu.

Can the difference be expressed in probability terms?
 
This almost deserves its own thread. Not conclusive but - very important news the potential cause of MS


And...moderna is already working on a vaccine.


I have been, perhaps fairly, accused of excessive optimism in these parts. But truly - isn't science wonderful.
This is potentially a Nobel Prize level finding, similar to when the connection between HPV and cervical cancer established.
 
Can the difference be expressed in probability terms?
You mean the difference between genome copies and infectious load, or between vaccinated and unvaccinated, or between Delta or Omicron?

The ratio between genome copies and infectious load should be comparatively stable without previously established immunity. In virology we usually get that ratio from tissue culture. But after personal immunity get involve you have a lot of individual variations, probably more than bottle variations!
 

Tom Cannavan

Administrator
I read Tom's post about not to add fuel to this thread and I fully appreciate his decision.
At the meantime, he did not send pm to me asking me to reduce posting (I also very appreciate that).
I (maybe arrogantly) assume that I can still share some carefully picked non-political, new scientific finding? I

Po, you have understood perfectly: of course important, especially first-hand and new information can still be shared.

I just want to discourage page after page of people trying to win arguments against those who don't see things their way. That had become tedious, repetitive and self-defeating after 4,000 posts...
 
Po, you have understood perfectly: of course important, especially first-hand and new information can still be shared.

I just want to discourage page after page of people trying to win arguments against those who don't see things their way. That had become tedious, repetitive and self-defeating after 4,000 posts...
You're just no fun these days.
 
You mean the difference between genome copies and infectious load, or between vaccinated and unvaccinated, or between Delta or Omicron?

The ratio between genome copies and infectious load should be comparatively stable without previously established immunity. In virology we usually get that ratio from tissue culture. But after personal immunity get involve you have a lot of individual variations, probably more than bottle variations!
Between vaccinated and unvaccinated, the difference in transmissiveness.
(Sounds like we don't have Delta-Omicron comparison data yet.)
 
Between vaccinated and unvaccinated, the difference in transmissiveness.
(Sounds like we don't have Delta-Omicron comparison data yet.)

Transmission among people needs to be measured by another methods and is more complicate.

In the Lancet ID paper, for trasmission in household, the risk reduced from 38% to 25%. However it's caulating risk from contacts, not really on how transmissible vaccinated people vs unvaccinated people.
 
Top