Peter Sagan tests positive for COVID-19 for second time in less than a year

Rich_cb wrote:

Yes it does. I link to the article because the salient points are presented in an easy to read format. Here's the bit of the paper that demonstrates little to no difference in infection after 2 doses.

Yup, that's how peer review works. Nice big blue arrow on a cropped screen shot

Your PHD will be in the post I expect....

Rich_cb wrote:

Yes it does. I link to the article because the salient points are presented in an easy to read format. Here's the bit of the paper that demonstrates little to no difference in infection after 2 doses.

Thank you for confirming that vaccination with 3 doses provides 55-80% protection vs Omicron

Nigel the Liar claims that "With Omicron there is little to no difference in terms of infection or spread whether you're vaccinated or not" 

Which is obviously a lie

Garage at Large wrote:

Also https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/health/covid-19-first-few-peer-revie... confirms the same. For example https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03826-3.

Do you think what we're witnessing here is a product of mass formation psychosis?

Nigel I'm not sure why your are continuing with your lie.

Rich's post clearly shows that vaccination with 3 doses provides 55-80% effectiveness.

I think it's human nature to resist changing our beliefs.

If vaccines (x2) provide little or no protection from symptomatic Omicron (as the best evidence currently suggests) then there is no longer a good argument for vaccine passports/mandates etc.

There is also no plausible moral case to be made against those who choose not to get themselves vaccinated.

It's a significant challenge to the beliefs held by a lot of people and, unsurprisingly, is being resisted.

Rich_cb wrote:

I think it's human nature to resist changing our beliefs. If vaccines provide little or no protection from symptomatic Omicron (as the best evidence currently suggests) then there is no longer a good argument for vaccine passports/mandates etc. There is also no plausible moral case to be made against those who choose not to get themselves vaccinated. It's a significant challenge to the beliefs held by a lot of people and, unsurprisingly, is being resisted.

So have all the other variants gone away then? (It is of course entirely possible that omicron could drive these extinct. I've not [yet] heard arguments yet for "let's encourage it!" as a new take on "herd immunity".)

Has the immunity to all other variants conferred by the vaccines now expired?

Is there no possibility that further mutations are occuring to which said vaccines may reduce harm?

Genuine questions. Challenge some beliefs and all!

I don't hold much of a candle for any side but it does seem that there are some opposed attractive belief complexes which draw people e.g. concern about "freedoms / the economy" vs. "we must stop this at (most) costs" or "I don't want to be responsible for someone else's illness".

Sounds like Rich has taken sides with the antivaxer Boo. 

I've just presented objective evidence from credible sources.

It so happens that this, partly, supports some of Nige's argument.

I haven't seen any real evidence of Nige being an anti-vaxxer. It's perfectly acceptable to question the efficacy of vaccination. It's a vital component of informed consent to said vaccination.

I think Delta basically killed off all the other variants and now Omicron will kill off Delta.

As a consequence any specific immunity to those variants is now less beneficial.

We'll have to wait and see if prior vaccination protects against serious illness (Hospital/ITU/Death) from Omicron but I believe the initial data indicates that it might.

Future mutations are likely to originate from Omicron so it's unlikely that the old vaccines will work against them but never say never.

I think when vaccination definitely prevented you getting COVID and therefore spreading it the moral argument in favour was easy to make. Now it appears that's not the case I think the moral argument is significantly weaker.

I'm triple jabbed myself but I don't support mandatory vaccines or vaccine passports.

I strongly believe that people should be free to make their own choices about their own bodies.

Rich_cb wrote:

I strongly believe that people should be free to make their own choices about their own bodies.

Yes they should, but then they should accept that choices come with consequences and if their choice means they risk harming others then society as a whole has a right to impose restrictions to prevent them doing so.

And if vaccination produces no meaningful protection against symptomatic infection what then?

You can't argue that you have to get vaccinated to protect others.

As far as I can see the moral argument for vaccine mandates or restrictions for the unvaccinated evaporate in such a scenario.

I thought triple jabbed equates with 55 to 80% effectiveness ?

Not that I claim to understand these papers.

hirsute wrote:

I thought triple jabbed equates with 55 to 80% effectiveness ?

Not that I claim to understand these papers.

 

Unfortunately Nigel the Liar and Rich have now fallen down a rabbit hole together rather than admit old Nige was lying initially. 

Which is odd considering their great hero Boris says we have a duty to correct anti-vax nosense...

That's right but double jabbed is 0-20.

The worry is that the efficacy of the triple jab will rapidly fall to the same sort of levels.

Given that the booster (mRNA) is designed to only produce antibodies against the spike (which is very different in Omicron) it seems unlikely it will produce lasting immunity.

In that case, you should have written

"And if only being double vaccinated produces no meaningful protection against symptomatic infection what then?"

"Given that the booster (mRNA) is designed to only produce antibodies against the spike (which is very different in Omicron) it seems unlikely it will produce lasting immunity."

Is that your medical opinion ?

I was presenting a hypothetical scenario to Rendel.

I thought I made that clear by presenting it as a question and specifying 'in such a scenario'. Apologies if it was not as clear as I intended.

It is my medical opinion.

Thanks for the reply.

I'll add that I don't agree with the idea that 'my body, my choice'

Can you give an example where you think it is reasonable for a person (with capacity) to have their bodily autonomy violated?

Rich_cb wrote:

Can you give an example where you think it is reasonable for a person (with capacity) to have their bodily autonomy violated?

Is catching a potentially deadly virus from someone who has chosen not to take measures to prevent that happening not a violation of bodily autonomy?

Nobody is talking about forcing people to have the vaccine. You know this. People are talking about people who refuse the vaccine having to accept that there may be consequences in terms of their capacity to put others at risk.

I can just about accept that argument if the vaccinations work. We know double vaccination is not very effective (if at all) against Omicron.

Should we restrict the movements of the double vaccinated until they get their booster?

What if the booster only works for a few months? What then Rendel?

2 European countries have already made vaccination compulsory for some of their citizens. It seems reasonable to discuss the possibility of that happening here.

Judges make decisions on medical treatment of minors or those unable to make a decision.
People can be sectioned and given medication.

Those people don't have capacity though.

What about an adult of sound mind?

Rich_cb wrote:

And if vaccination produces no meaningful protection against symptomatic infection what then?

I take it that you are ignoring booster doses, which according to ICL have an effectiveness against symptomatic Omicron infection of 55%–80%?

Rich_cb wrote:

You can't argue that you have to get vaccinated to protect others.

Why not? Society and indeed civilisation is based upon individuals having to do things in order to protect their fellow citizens. In any case nobody is saying that people have to get vaccinated, I don't know any serious person in this country who has suggested mandatory vaccination. What has been suggested is that if you are not prepared to take appropriate measures to protect others then you will not be allowed to go places where your decision could inflict harm upon others. 

You seem to have misunderstood my post.

The key is the word 'IF'.

Give it another go.

Rich_cb wrote:

You seem to have misunderstood my post. The key is the word 'IF'. Give it another go.

The science shows that the vaccination booster does "provide meaningful protection against symptomatic infection" so why are you saying "if"? You seem to have misunderstood the scientific facts. Give it another go.

I'm saying "If" because we don't have any long term data about the efficacy of boosters against Omicron.

If the efficacy drops to a level comparable to double vaccinated then the situation I described becomes extremely pertinent.

Now we've set the scene; what would you do in such a situation?

It would seem ridiculous to have mandatory vaccines or restrictions on the unvaccinated in such a scenario would it not?

I'll have a look at that channel. Thanks.

Yes, excess mortality is probably the best measure we have but even that has its flaws.

I'm also hopeful that Omicron represents the start of milder covid variants and soon it will be no more than another annoying seasonal virus.

Rich_cb wrote:

I think Delta basically killed off all the other variants and now Omicron will kill off Delta. As a consequence any specific immunity to those variants is now less beneficial. We'll have to wait and see if prior vaccination protects against serious illness (Hospital/ITU/Death) from Omicron but I believe the initial data indicates that it might. Future mutations are likely to originate from Omicron so it's unlikely that the old vaccines will work against them but never say never. I think when vaccination definitely prevented you getting COVID and therefore spreading it the moral argument in favour was easy to make. Now it appears that's not the case I think the moral argument is significantly weaker. I'm triple jabbed myself but I don't support mandatory vaccines or vaccine passports. I strongly believe that people should be free to make their own choices about their own bodies.

That seems to be what's happening from data. We still have delta about and a smattering of others. The more travel we're happy with the more likely we may get sporadic re-infection with "past" variants of course - that seems to appear in data (see below). Cf. the example of the rather different AIDS virus where different variants persisted in different niches / populations / transmission routes. Anyway it's still not "just Omicron" as of 21 Dec:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043807/technical-briefing-33.pdf

Just the data ma'am? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043695/variants-of-concern-technical-briefing-33-data-england-23-december-2021.ods

So "As a consequence any specific immunity to those variants is now less beneficial" maybe true but any immunity will be beneficial if you do meet such a variant, which is still possible. If you're old or immunocompromised or just plain unlucky that could be the worse for you. Odds are probably in your favour however.

Your note about the moral argument:

Rich_cb wrote:

I think when vaccination definitely prevented you getting COVID and therefore spreading it the moral argument in favour was easy to make. Now it appears that's not the case I think the moral argument is significantly weaker.

If there were no reservoir of variants [EDIT]unaffected by any vaccine, and if the likelihood of viral mutation producing something which might be handicapped by the vaccine were very low (probably an imponderable - I'm not sure it is in principle however) and ignoring the "how did this jump the species barrier and what are the odds of recurrence of that" question I'd agree. Since we're not there yet I followed what may have informed your own decision and got vaccines (still waiting on 3rd). Since however it's probable that this particular virus may follow the eventual pattern of other coronaviruses and decline in potential harm I certainly agree with the policy of "keep weighing up if all the restrictions / spending are overall worthwhile". We need to be aware of our "just put it back how it was" tendencies though.

I'm no more for compulsory vaccination than compulsory cycle helmets. As for vaccine passports - not formed an opinion. We accept (or are force to use) certain forms of "identification" mandated by the state in return for e.g. international travel, access to resources, driving a vehicle. For certain travel you have previously had to have vaccinations, I think. Most of us also gladly identify ourselves and bulk-dump our personal data onto public platforms of uncertain "morality" - because everyone else does. And accept the opinions of our "friends" on there...

Rich_cb wrote:

I strongly believe that people should be free to make their own choices about their own bodies.

This is a very good principle! It's worth noting we don't even strictly follow that in the good old liberal(ish) UK however! First example I can think of is the mental health act (which I'm not defending!) but plenty others. As you're doubtless aware the complication in the viral case is that your decisions about your body can also have impact on others.

So many of our decisions impact on others, if I live an unhealthy lifestyle I'm likely to occupy significant healthcare resources when I get older.

At some point this may lead to insufficient resources being available to treat someone else who then suffers a negative outcome.

My poor choices could cause harm for someone else yet I'm not mandated to live healthily.

I suppose the 'my body, my choice' argument needs a caveat covering those of sound mind only because otherwise it wouldn't be compatible with compulsory mental health treatments, which mostly in favour of.

I was surprised that the mandating of vaccination in Austria and Italy hadn't garnered more press coverage.

I'd hope it would never be acceptable here but I wouldn't put it past Drakeford or Sturgeon to give it a go.

There is no chance of compulsory vaccination in Scotland. While your politics may put you some distance from a left of centre Sturgeon, any suggestion that mandatory vaccination will be proposed by the current Scottish Government is ridiculous.

Holyrood would not vote for it anyway.

I know you are expressing an opinion, but as someone who lives in Scotland it is not a credible proposition.

I am uncomfortable with mandatory vaccine measures, we need to convince people of the case and bring people with us.

To be honest, I have not heard any credible sources in the UK pushing for mandatory vaccination for the general population.