Jump to content
Mlle. Zabzie

Covid 19-31 The Mutants Are Coming

Recommended Posts

I just saw a pretty depressing documentary about how much vaccine has to be destroyed in some parts of the US because they thaw it but nobody shows up to take it. :(

There are a lot of places that could use that vaccine. 

Edited by Luzifer's right hand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted this in the UK politics thread, but it deserves repeating here. We're opening up a lot of indoor things on Monday, a little worrying given this SAGE report regarding the VOC out of India

Quote

It is therefore highly likely that this variant is more transmissible than B.1.1.7 (high confidence), and it is a realistic possibility that it is as much as 50% more transmissible. There are also plausible biological reasons as to why some of the mutations present could make this variant more transmissible.

If this variant were to have a 40% to 50% transmission advantage nationally compared to B.1.1.7, sensitivity analyses in the modelling of the roadmap in England (SAGE 88) indicate that it is likely that progressing with Step 3 alone (with no other local, regional, or national changes to measures) would lead to a substantial resurgence of hospitalisations (similar to, or larger than, previous peaks). Progressing with both Steps 3 and 4 at the earliest dates could lead to a much larger peak. Smaller transmission advantage would lead to smaller peaks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not good.  Why do they say that it is likely that there will be a substantial resurgence of hospitalisations (similar to previous peaks) when they don't know whether there is an increase in disease severity?  I know this variant may be more resistant to the vaccines but they don't think it is as bad as the South African variant.

I'm wondering am I missing something (are they actually thinking it is more severe but they aren't sure enough to explicitly say that?).  If they said "it is possible that there will be a substantial resurgence", that would make sense to me.  "Likely" makes it quite alarming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Indian variant is spreading around the US too, and has been found already in NYC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Padraig said:

Not good.  Why do they say that it is likely that there will be a substantial resurgence of hospitalisations (similar to previous peaks) when they don't know whether there is an increase in disease severity?  I know this variant may be more resistant to the vaccines but they don't think it is as bad as the South African variant.

I'm wondering am I missing something (are they actually thinking it is more severe but they aren't sure enough to explicitly say that?).  If they said "it is possible that there will be a substantial resurgence", that would make sense to me.  "Likely" makes it quite alarming.

They already believe that the Indian variant is more severe. They've done animal testing that indicates that, the specific mutations are similar to another variant that was more severe, and the evidence in India where more younger people are having more severe symptoms faster is pretty clear. In particular it appears to cause more lesions in lung and intestinal cells. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Padraig said:

  Why do they say that it is likely that there will be a substantial resurgence of hospitalisations (similar to previous peaks) when they don't know whether there is an increase in disease severity? 

More transmissible means more infections, and more infections would invariably lead to more hospitalizations and deaths. Now, some of these deaths & hospitalizations *should* be reduced given the vaccinations we've had here in the UK, and we should see that in the data. Unfortunately, we are at 36% of the population that has received both doses, so there is still a fairly large population that remains susceptible. Amongst the 36%, I would imagine the ones more likely to get hospitalized/ die are a large percentage, so it's possible we don't see quite as many hospitalizations and deaths, but we will still see quite a few given that we're at 36%.

19 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

having more severe symptoms faster is pretty clear. In particular it appears to cause more lesions in lung and intestinal cells. 

What specifically are we talking about here? Because 'lesions' is very vague and does not really mean anything. Would like to read some links if you have them for both the severe symptoms and the 'lesions'

Edited by Raja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raja said:

More transmissible means more infections, and more infections would invariably lead to more hospitalizations and deaths. Now, some of these deaths & hospitalizations *should* be reduced given the vaccinations we've had here in the UK, and we should see that in the data. Unfortunately, we are at 36% of the population that has received both doses, so there is still a fairly large population that remains susceptible. Amongst the 36%, I would imagine the ones more likely to get hospitalized/ die are a large percentage, so it's possible we don't see quite as many hospitalizations and deaths, but we will still see quite a few given that we're at 36%.

How would you weigh the other third of the adult population that have only received their first dose? On top of the 36% with both doses, there's another 34% with a lower level of immunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leap said:

How would you weigh the other third of the adult population that have only received their first dose? On top of the 36% with both doses, there's another 34% with a lower level of immunity.

As you say, those who have had the first dose should still see some level of protection against hospitalizations and deaths. This public health data set looks at vaccine effectiveness with the first and second dose against different outcomes, i.e. outcomes like symptomatic disease, hospitalizations and deaths; 1st dose has a protection of 55% to 70% against symptomatic disease, and 75% to 85% against hospitalization and 75% to 80% against mortality ( though their level of confidence with regards to mortality is low)

90% of over 70s have had both doses, so we will still see deaths & hospitalizations in that group, but it shouldn't be to the extent that we have seen in the first two waves, however, we have less than 70% of the 65 to 70 fully vaccinated, so there are quite a few people in that group that have only the first dose and people aged 60 to 65 have not had their second dose at all.

So we will certainly see hospitalizations & deaths in people that have had the first dose, including those in the 65 to 70 range and certainly in the 60 to 65 range

That table on page 6 also shows the importance of receiving both doses and not just 1 dose  - 2 doses of the Pfizer vaccine has an effectiveness of 90 to 95% at preventing hospitalizations and 95 to 99% at preventing deaths.

Edited by Raja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...