Should zero Covid be the objective?

[grumzed]

Scott, the R-number is not meaningless. It has a spread which is to account for the unknowns. It seems to me that the government have been listening to the best information that the science groups can give and this is also reflected in most other countries with the same problem.

If there had been specific problems with animal testing with mRNA vaccines I do not think it at all likely that it would be used on humans. However, it is a relatively new technique and even has promise of curing some types of cancer. It certainly would be better if it had been tested longer with more human trials but, given the circumstances, the use of such vaccines have been adjudged safe enough. But if you are worried about it, ask if you can have one of the other vaccines like the Astra-Zeneca vaccine which does not use the mRNA technique. I have to have an eye operation in a few weeks so I'm keen to ensure that I'm well protected before going to a hospital and the Pfizer vaccine is good in this regard.

[Scott777]

Grumzed, since there is no reliable information on infections, then the R number is meaningless.  It is whatever they would like it to be.  Do more testing, and cases go up.  Increase the cycle threshold and it also goes up.

The vaccine functions by instructing cells to make a particular protein based on genetically engineered mRNA.  It is also experimental.  In my book, that makes it a genetic experiment, but if you prefer, we can call it an mRNA experiment.  It doesn't really matter.  And the trials are only 30% complete.  So what were the results of the animal tests?

[grumzed]

Scott, the R-factor is a measure of how many people an infected person will go on to infect. If this number is greater than 1 then the number infected grows "exponentially" which is a mathematical term that describes a number that (say) doubles every certain number of days and is only limited when a very high number of the population have the desease so that there is either immunity (which is not a certain result) or are dead. To be fair the maths gets modified when the number infected approaches that of the total population. After the recent lockdown the R-number has fallen from something like 1.3 to 0.7.

The mRNA vaccine is not a genetic experiment. It cannot in any way affect any of a persons genes. It instructs our cells to make a particular protein in a way that the Covid virus would. This causes a natural immune response that then blocks the virus. It effectively trains our body to fight the virus effectively and quickly. I am a physicist not a biologist, but that is what I understand. It is indeed new technology but has been in development for over 20 years and widely tested on animals and a similar type of vaccine was used on humans to protect against Ebola. I have had the first jab of the Pfizer vaccine which is of this type.

[Scott777]

It's not that I'm questioning polio vaccines (although some people do), but I'm saying that a polio vaccine (even if it did save lives) has nothing to do with an experimental mRNA injection.  The only connection is that you inject them.  It would be dangerous to assume that mRNA is safe just because your vaccines were safe.  I know there will be pressure to take them, but it's still an unknown risk, and I can only hope companies will be sued, just as they have for mandating masks.

[cromwell]

Cromwell, the quote button doesn't work for me, it just says "Loading..."

"Vaccines are life savers not conspiracies."  That's a very general statement, like saying "air is a lifesaver".  It depends if the air is fresh or full of poisonous gas.  And the Pfizer and Moderna 'vaccines' are not vaccines, they are genetic experiments.

No it's not a general statement,I demonstrated to you that I and many of my peers had vaccines and didn't get sick

When I was a kid polio was a real threat,kids disappeared from class,the lucky ones came back with calipers and kids being cruel bastards laughed and called them cripples,an unlucky one ended up in an iron lungmarginally better than being dead.

How many people get polio here now? vaccines did that and if people refuse them diseases like that will come back.

If you don't want the covid vaccine fine but expect to be barred from travel and holidays,shops perhaps or sports venues and even some employment,

Might seem harsh but that's the way it looks to be going.

On another note you can raise such probs as the lack of quote in the section [highlight] The Forum [/highlight]
anyway I will raise it with Nick there

[Scott777]

Cromwell, the quote button doesn't work for me, it just says "Loading..."

"Vaccines are life savers not conspiracies."  That's a very general statement, like saying "air is a lifesaver".  It depends if the air is fresh or full of poisonous gas.  And the Pfizer and Moderna 'vaccines' are not vaccines, they are genetic experiments.

[Scott777]

Grumzed, what "R" factor are you talking about?  Where did you get it from?  How do you think we can reduce a number that is meaningless, and why?  And why vaccines?

[cromwell]

JoG is right. I think it is very likely that a number of deaths from Covid will be expected even if/when the virus is said to be under control. 1000 deaths per year will be considered quite acceptable as is the current deaths from flu (8000 pa??). Ideally the virus would be eliminated but this seems very unlikely in the near future. The main aim is to reduce the exponential growth (the "R" factor) to a low level at the same time as reducing the number of infectious cases so as to maintain this death rate at this level. Flu viruses also mutate so we have to keep vaccines updated accordingly and have annual vaccinations. I believe the aim would be to do the same for Covid.

And it is seriously mad to consider that the development of vaccines and applying them is some sort of conspiracy.

Since I was a kid I've had vaccines for Polio,Diptheria and many others which meant I didn't get seriously ill or die as a result.
Vaccines are life savers not conspiracies.

[grumzed]

JoG is right. I think it is very likely that a number of deaths from Covid will be expected even if/when the virus is said to be under control. 1000 deaths per year will be considered quite acceptable as is the current deaths from flu (8000 pa??). Ideally the virus would be eliminated but this seems very unlikely in the near future. The main aim is to reduce the exponential growth (the "R" factor) to a low level at the same time as reducing the number of infectious cases so as to maintain this death rate at this level. Flu viruses also mutate so we have to keep vaccines updated accordingly and have annual vaccinations. I believe the aim would be to do the same for Covid.

And it is seriously mad to consider that the development of vaccines and applying them is some sort of conspiracy.

[johnofgwent]

Zero Covid might never be possible but that doesn't mean that we should just decide that, say, 1000 deaths a year directly attributable to the virus is OK ...

Why should we not ?

It is a fact that the risk assessments for the latest armoured fighting vehicle model range to roll off General Dynamics' south Wales production line PERMIT a certain number of service personnel to be killed or maimed each year by exploding Li-Ion battery packs inside the vehicle as it it being driven to a war zone.

Yes, you heard that right. The lawyer-rich environment in which are now forced to live our lives has caused the lawyers hired by this arms manufacturer to demand that someone like me do an analysis of the production methods to calculate from Mean Time Between Failure of key components the best guess estimate of how often those failures would lead to a critical short circuit causing "imminent and violent disassembly" of the Lithium Ion Batteries providing the backup power to key equipment, leading to death / injury of the crew.

It is but a short step from there to a formal declaration written into law indicating the numbers of affected civilians we can expect to lose as a result of other issues.

With vaccine makers being protected from legal pursuit if the worst happens, as part of the licence conditions, you can be sure someone like me has already penned his document defining acceptable losses. It's just not in the public domain yet

[Scott777]

You are correct, the PCR test detects genetic material of the virus, but after you have had a virus, it's normal for that material to remain.  As Kary Mullis has said, you can find anything in anybody if you try hard enough with PCR.  This means, if you use a high cycle threshold, and if you test a lot, you are likely to find a piece of SARS-COV2, but there's nothing to prove it is active or infectious.

The WHO has said that a positive PCR test does not mean you have Covid, and Dominic Raab and Bozo said it is only 7% accurate.  Raab also said the false positives are very high.

You cannot make any conclusion at all from a positive test.  So, ignoring that, you only have symptoms to go by, and they are more or less the same for Covid and flu.  And if you are asymptomatic (and positive), then you have nothing at all to show that you have Covid, even though it will be assumed you do, based purely on the test.

[patman post]

Actually, there is no evidence of either.  The rules for recording Covid are different for the rules for flu.  Covid is based the tests, and sometimes on symptoms, but as we know the PCR tests produce very high false positives, therefore anyone very ill with flu is likely to be classed as Covid.  That's why there is no flu, because they are simply misdiagnosed as Covid.

I'm no medic, but that seems unlikely.  From what I've heard and read, Covid tests work by detecting specific genetic material of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The tests — a swab and a less-used antibody test  — are more likely to throw a false negative than a false positive. 
The lower presence of flu this winter is probably caused by all the precautions people are taking — like hand washing, surface disinfecting, masking, distancing, etc — and last year's efforts made to get the bigger take-up of the flu jab...

[Scott777]

Although seasonal flu can be serious for some people and results in some fatalities, it's a much smaller proportion than with covid-19. It also seems to me that covid is more contagious than seasonal flu since the restrictions imposed to contain covid have also all but eliminated flu.

Actually, there is no evidence of either.  The rules for recording Covid are different for the rules for flu.  Covid is based the tests, and sometimes on symptoms, but as we know the PCR tests produce very high false positives, therefore anyone very ill with flu is likely to be classed as Covid.  That's why there is no flu, because they are simply misdiagnosed as Covid.

[patman post]

But not better for an already over-populated world.

It seems unlikely that — short of a major disaster — the world population will decrease any time soon. But there are indications that a country's birthrate falls as its population gets wealthier**. This may bring its own problems. But nevertheless, it might be in the developed world's best interest not to be stingy with its to aid to less developed countries as it could be a factor in discouraging people from having so many children.
Supplying Covid vaccines as part of that aid might also stem its spread.

** it is predominantly the countries with the least GDP per head of population where the birthrate is more than 2 per woman. Even the UK — with all its supposed flood of third world immigration — is averaging under 1.9...
https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=0&v=31&l=en

[HDQQ]

HDQQ, so then the question is, what measures should be taken, and should they be more strict than with the flu?

Although seasonal flu can be serious for some people and results in some fatalities, it's a much smaller proportion than with covid-19. It also seems to me that covid is more contagious than seasonal flu since the restrictions imposed to contain covid have also all but eliminated flu.

In the case of other types of flu like those passed from birds or pigs, they could potentially be as dangerous as covid-19. Apparently all the longstanding pandemic plans that the government had in place before covid were based on the probability that any illness spreading around the world would be some sort of flu. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't covid spread so rapidly because people can be infectious to others for several days before they develop any symptoms themselves? With seasonal flu people usually become ill before they become infectious to others, so they're probably at home and possibly in bed, giving the disease an inbuilt self-isolation effect.

The measures that should be taken are really a continuation of what's happening now - vaccination, social distancing, masks, restrictions on gatherings and, if necessary, lockdowns. Hopefully if the number of cases can be brought down low enough, and with the experience of hindsight, track and trace could be more effective.