Coronavirus thread

[prémont]

The thing to say is that it's a very small study and probably not true. But it does show how precarious our understanding of the disease is.

Yes. there are conflicting results of studies and experts disagree. The Danish Serum Institute has found out - now the Delta variant has become predominant here, that fully vaccinated people only constitute 1% of those which contract the disease, and they tend to be hospitalized much less than unvaccinated people. Maybe some of the reason of the low percentage is that vaccinated persons get fewer symptoms and tend to be tested less.

Our health authorities think that we only need to give the particularly vulnerable group a third jab in the course of the next 6 months, but a Danish expert (Jens Østergaard) says, that we will need to give all vaccinated people a third jab to cope with the Delta variant . I hope they find out before it's too late.

[Mandryka]

Is there clear evidence that the vaccines are effective at stopping you catching delta - I know they are effective at stopping symptoms. I just can't see anything about this online!

[Karl Henning]

CDC study shows three-fourths of people infected in Massachusetts covid-19 outbreak were vaccinated but few required hospitalization

Critically, the study found that vaccinated individuals carried as much virus in their noses as unvaccinated individuals, and that vaccinated people could spread the virus to each other. The CDC was criticized this week for changing its mask guidance without publishing the data it relied on. The report released Friday contains that data.

...

Scientists said the Provincetown outbreak and other recent data on breakthrough infections make clear that the vaccines offer significant protection, as they were designed to, against severe illness and death but do not offer blanket protection against any chance of infection. Only a handful of people in the outbreak were hospitalized, but four of them were fully vaccinated.

[prémont]

Is there clear evidence that the vaccines are effective at stopping you catching delta - I know they are effective at stopping symptoms. I just can't see anything about this online!

I think the consensus is that vaccines reduce the risk of getting infection, but there is doubt as to how much, and there is also doubt as to how much the vaccinated, infected persons are prone to infect others.

[prémont]

CDC study shows three-fourths of people infected in Massachusetts covid-19 outbreak were vaccinated but few required hospitalization

Quite a difference between 1% and 75%. 

[Mirror Image]

I and my wife (48 and 47 respectively) had Covid in early March and we were not vaccinated. Had only minor symptoms (the most annoying being the loss of smell and taste but it didn't last long for me, longer for my wife, though --- she's not fully recovered yet in this respect). Your sister being vaccinated, she shouldn't have any problems. Best wishes to her, hoping for a quick and full recovery!

Thank you, Andrei.

Very sorry to hear this. Hopefully the vaccine will prevent severe illness, as data indicates it does in most cases.

I appreciate it, SH.

[Mirror Image]

Firstly, very sorry to hear that your sister has contracted Covid and hope that she fully recovers and soon!

Secondly, I'm delighted to hear that you will be getting your vaccine next week and hope that all goes smoothly.  Please keep in touch here and let us know how it all goes and any reactions.

Best wishes,

PD

Thanks, PD.

[Mandryka]

I think the consensus is that vaccines reduce the risk of getting infection, but there is doubt as to how much, and there is also doubt as to how much the vaccinated, infected persons are prone to infect others.

But no evidence - don't forget the consensus was that vaccination is effective against transmission!

Interesting to be watching the cutting edge of a science operate - everything is so precarious, everything rests on temporary consensus.

[71 dB]

But no evidence - don't forget the consensus was that vaccination is effective against transmission!

Interesting to be watching the cutting edge of a science operate - everything is so precarious, everything rests on temporary consensus.

Science is typically slow process. Covid-19 has been a thing for less than 2 years and the latest variants much less. Vaccines might have been effective against the transmission of the original virus, but the variants are different beasts. The most important thing is the vaccines are effective against serious illness and deaths. 100 % certainty is luxury. Often temporary consensus is the best we can do.

[krummholz]

Science is typically slow process. Covid-19 has been a thing for less than 2 years and the latest variants much less. Vaccines might have been effective against the transmission of the original virus, but the variants are different beasts. The most important thing is the vaccines are effective against serious illness and deaths. 100 % certainty is luxury. Often temporary consensus is the best we can do.

Yes. Of course, the problem is that the general public does not understand how science works - at least here in the US. And there is a sizeable minority here who interpret the shifting guidance as evidence of "flip-flopping", that the "experts" really don't know what they're on about. The correlation between reaction to shifting expert guidance and political persuasion is rather striking.

[Karl Henning]

Science is typically slow process. Covid-19 has been a thing for less than 2 years and the latest variants much less. Vaccines might have been effective against the transmission of the original virus, but the variants are different beasts. The most important thing is the vaccines are effective against serious illness and deaths. 100 % certainty is luxury. Often temporary consensus is the best we can do.

Yes, it doesn't, cannot serve for instant gratification.

[Karl Henning]

Yes. Of course, the problem is that the general public does not understand how science works - at least here in the US. And there is a sizeable minority here who interpret the shifting guidance as evidence of "flip-flopping", that the "experts" really don't know what they're on about. The correlation between reaction to shifting expert guidance and political persuasion is rather striking.

And no mere coincidence.

[Mandryka]

Yes. Of course, the problem is that the general public does not understand how science works - at least here in the US.

Yes. But the problem in the UK is not with the general public, it is with the media and with the scientists themselves. The media oversimplify and encourage people to think the worst, because fear sells papers and makes for clicks. And the scientists themselves, for political or other reasons, present their view as the truth when in fact it is highly debatable. 

The third problem, and maybe the most conceptually difficult, is that managing the crisis is much much more than science. The covid crisis is not caused by a virus. It is caused by the interaction of a virus with society. And so the best way to manage it is determined by both health science and social science - political, economic, psychological, moral -  considerations.

There is a concept in politics of populism -- the idea is that political leaders influence media to  present grossly oversimplified views about economy or crime or whatever, in order to curry favour with the public.  In the UK we see all the time covid populism from Government and Opposition, from civil service scientists and from independent scientists  -- a gross oversimplification of issues to do with border controls, masks, making schools safe, travel restrictions, employers' responsibilities, quarantine etc.

[Florestan]

the scientists themselves, for political or other reasons, present their view as the truth when in fact it is highly debatable.

Thomas Kuhn knew, and said, it many decades ago.

Aldous Huxley foresaw it many decades ago.

We are living in a dictatorship of scientists / experts. And not even that, actually in a dictatorship of the consensus.

As a close acquaintance of mine told me recently, if a "famous expert" told on prime air TV that kissing each other asses increases the IQ, three quarters of the populace would instantly start doing just that.

Welcome to the brave new world!

[Mandryka]

Thomas Kuhn knew, and said, it many decades ago.

Aldous Huxley foresaw it many decades ago.

We are living in a dictatorship of scientists / experts. And not even that, actually in a dictatorship of the consensus.

As a close acquaintance of mine told me recently, if a "famous expert" told on prime air TV that kissing each other asses increases the IQ, three quarters of the populace would instantly start doing just that.

Welcome to the brave new world!

There's a real danger that we're sleepwalking into some sort of dictatorship. The scientists only have influence because of the way they're presented on the media, and the media is in the control of capital.

[Florestan]

There's a real danger that we're sleepwalking into some sort of dictatorship. The scientists only have influence because of the way they're presented on the media, and the media is in the control of capital.

The blind faith in science/scientists is just as irrational as the blind faith in this or that religion and their priests that some scientists decry.

[Mandryka]

The blind faith in science/scientists is just as irrational as the blind faith in this or that religion and their priests that some scientists decry.

The method of science leads to ideas which we are justified in asserting, justified because they are predictive and explanatory ideas. Religion doesn't.

[Mandryka]

Have a listen to this Andrei, if you can get it in Romania. I think it's quite interesting

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000y7sq

[Herman]

We are living in a dictatorship of scientists / experts. And not even that, actually in a dictatorship of the consensus.

1 we're NOT living in a dictatorship

2 and certainly not in a dictatorship of experts. Experts have never been in lower esteem than now, what with everybody with an internet connection considering him- or herself an expert.

[Mandryka]

1 we're NOT living in a dictatorship

Yes. Now, what are we living in? Is it closer to a democracy than a dictatorship?