Mutating Corona Virus

[tobyjugg2]

and dont forget that as of yet - parties are still on ...

 

(which is undoubtedly because Johnson daren't ban them while no10 party antics are in the limelight

[honeybee13]

I don't get this. If anything, you're more likely to catch covid at a party than in normal working conditions, aren't you?

 

If it's as you say and parties are being allowed because of no 10's little local difficulties, that's very cynical. Let's hope that a lot of people decide for themselves like they have before when they didn't agree with government advice.

[unclebulgaria67]

Economics before health ?  Hospitality sector on its knees financially, so Government does not want to see many businesses fail. 

 

Christmas is when money is made, so any proper lockdown will happen in January.

[honeybee13]

You're probably right, UB. It's the hospitals and the NHS that will suffer.

 

Would the problem be this bad without 'Freedom Day'?

[tobyjugg2]

* Freedom day

* Mask-refusnik MPs

* Trips across the UK to lock down wherever you like and 60 mile eyesight test drives - excused by the PM and MPs

* MPs like Jenrick travelling around their multiple house during lockdown

* MPs using their position as enablers for making money from companies through abusing their position - protected by the PM and other MPs in the ****** party

* MPs yelling and swearing at staff - all excuses and protected

* Parties - with the reporting #locked down far more than the MPs ever were

* Courts being over-ruled - presenting the UK as a failed state with ministers as ruling despots who answer to no-one and nothing

The list goes on and on

 

Its what to expect when you have a lying piece of incompetent crap as PM who has empower the other pieces of crap - none of whom are fit for office and many of whom should be in prison

[hightail]

14 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

I'm of the solid opinion they are needed - especially for those who had the O/AZ

Are you saying O/AZ induced antibodies aren't effective TJ? 

Edited December 9, 2021 by hightail

[honeybee13]

I think I've read that they're less effective than Pfizer and possibly Moderna. But if two AZ are topped up with one Pfizer or Moderna, the protection is very good, including against omicron, I believe.

 

I saw an article the other day, I'll go and look for it.

[honeybee13]

Here you go. The BBC article mentions AZ being topped up with an MRNA vaccine like Pfizer or Moderna.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-59489988

 

And this is about why AZ isn't being used for boosters.

 

https://www.scotsman.com/health/coronavirus/booster-jags-why-astrazeneca-isnt-used-as-a-covid-booster-vaccine-and-if-you-can-have-a-pfizer-booster-after-an-az-jab-3461843

 

[hightail]

2 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

I saw an article the other day, I'll go and look for it.

Thank you.  I've seen all sorts of figures bandied about.

[hightail]

The Southampton study published in the Lancet linked in the BBC article you gave is very interesting.  Seems all vaccines are good at boosting and if we only had O/AZ it would have been 'good enough'.  Very interesting that the three month interval from second jab was always the recommendation.  Why did we orginally go for six months?

Edited December 9, 2021 by hightail

[honeybee13]

Interesting about the wait, HT. Was it lack of stock, not wanting to pay the money earlier?..

 

France has only just reduced the gap to five months but there's talk of doing boosters in the spring. They're introducing more restrictions as of Monday. 

[tobyjugg2]

Noted a fair bit earier in the thread, and being confirmed by recent studies

(It does vary quite considerably across people)

But generally

The O/AZ anti-bodies generated are lower at peak than Mrna vaccines @ 6 months

 

The O/AZ levels at 6 months are quite low unless the person has been in contact with the virus - in which case they are likely to still be high (as is the case with asll vaccines and natural/infection generated resistance)

an mrna booster, even half dose puts antibody levels higher than O/az at peak, and returns mrna vaccinated folk to peak levels or higher - especially in compromised folk

 

High levels of antibody are what seem to be the source of fighting off initial infection.

Still not hearing much about nasal sprays - which i would be using if I were out socialising/clubbing for example.

 

Infections (even unsymptomatic) boost the effectiveness of the vaccines

Whatever is your first 'encounter with the virus (vaccine of any type or infection) IS important to how your bady reacts to bothinfections and other vaccine shots

I'll sort out a link for this when I'm back on a main connection - theres a memory/learned response effect in the bocy

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

Easy reads

 

Why COVID boosters weren't tweaked to better match variants - ABC News

ABCNEWS.GO.COM

---

COVID-19 booster shots are an extra dose of the original vaccine, and some experts wonder why they weren't updated to better match the delta variant

 

 

'Immune imprinting' by different SARS-CoV-2 spike sequences from variants, vaccines means we now have diverse patterns

MEDICALXPRESS.COM

---

New research shows that the first SARS-CoV-2 spike protein a person encounters, be it by vaccination or infection, shapes their subsequent...

 

 

More detail

 

Immune imprinting and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine design

WWW.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV

---

Reformulating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines with variant strains is being pursued to combat the...

 

 

 

[hightail]

2 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Interesting about the wait, HT. Was it lack of stock, not wanting to pay the money earlier?..

I can give you my theory though it isn't nearly as exciting.  The results of that study were not available until over three months after the first people would have been entitled to a booster so our government gave six months as the 'recommended' interval to a booster.  Had they admitted that anything after three months was optimal there would have been outcry that we hadn't done it sooner - even though the evidence wasn't available sooner.  It isn't sinister in any way other than a political need to 'manage expectations'.

 

It's the difference between the science and what the media report.  In this case the media were happy to quote without question how a six month interval was right - because government policy said so, not the science. 

 

 

[hightail]

I've just read both the Medexpress article on imprinting and the paper from NCBI.NLM.  Both give me the impression that tweaking the vaccines for variants is quite important.  I thought a huge selling point of the MRNA vaccines was that it's an easy process, at least easier than with traditional vaccines.

 

I have had a cursory glance at the article from ABC News.  It is USA based and a journalistic piece rather than science.  It's also focussed on the Delta variant which seems a little out of date now.  My takeaway from it is that if a government has placed a large order (or in this case the FDA has 'approved' use as a booster) then everyone sticks with what they've got.  This appears to go against what the papers on imprinting say.

 

 

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

The 'imprinting' issue is extremely complex, and all aside from how different bodies in different states might react - it initially indicates that the first infection of a type tends to be remembered when anything similar infects the body

 

So vastly oversimplified and with cloads of assumptions and presumptions:

 

If you have the O/AZ first, then even an mRNA later will 'mosrtly strengthen the OA/Z learned response

If you had the mRNA vaccine first, then an O/AZ booster will 'revitalise' the mRNA response.

If you had a 'live virus infection' first, then the vaccines will 'revitalise that response

 

So both a live virus infection, or a 'bit of the virus' vaccination seems to be a more limited priming response, with the mRNA vaccine possibly generating a more general broader response.

 

Effectively having one of the mRNA vaccines first may prime a broader response to be boosted,

having an infection or the 'bit of virus vaccines may set the body a lower (although still quite effective) bar which gets 'refreshed even by an mRNA

 

 

and all the above could prove to be utter Johnson 

(err wrong simile - the above isnt intentionally dishonest or misleading - just the evolving understanding of what seems to be the state - but which could end up wrong)

 

 

 

It seems that the mRNA vaccine as a first primer generates a broader more general response which carries over

Edited December 9, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

oops

Missed an important bit

 

Not sure how much the virus needs to change to either

a) bypass the resistance (as the omicron seems to do to a certain extent)

b) trigger a fresh 'imprinting'

 

and whether those aspects are in any way closely linked

 

Someone might have an idea - I dont on these aspects as of now

Edited December 9, 2021 by tobyjugg2

[hightail]

20 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

The O/AZ levels at 6 months are quite low unless the person has been in contact with the virus - in which case they are likely to still be high (as is the case with asll vaccines and natural/infection generated resistance)

For info - mine had dropped after about five months and have stabilised nicely at an acceptable level since.  Last test was just over two weeks ago.  Obviously can't be sure what they do in between tests, whether I've had a contact which excited them.

[honeybee13]

That's reassuring, HT. Remind me please, have you had a booster shot?

[hightail]

No.  I had problems booking and my latest results mean I've let the panic subside because I know it isn't desperate.  I don't mind waiting a little while longer until I can get in somewhere close and convenient.

 

I would add - this isn't advice I'd give to anyone who didn't know their status

Edited December 10, 2021 by hightail

[hightail]

I think those of us who weren't in the very first cohort have had the benefit of the longer interval between the first two jabs.  They started out with the manufacturer's recommended four week interval and then went out to twelve weeks.  I'm pretty sure they then found that the longer interval was better, well it seems to have been for me.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2021 by hightail

[tobyjugg2]

1 hour ago, hightail said:

For info - mine had dropped after about five months and have stabilised nicely at an acceptable level since.  Last test was just over two weeks ago.  Obviously can't be sure what they do in between tests, whether I've had a contact which excited them.

 

Thats great :-)

 

I've seen various different levels claimed as 'effective above' but all consistently say three things

1. Higher is better for protection from both infection and severe disease

2. The levels fall off if there is no further contact with the virus (or vaccine)

3. Those who had contact with the virus before having the vaccine seem to have the highest levels

 

.. and recently that Omicron is bypassing immune defenses, and transmitting faster and more effectively with very limited contact.

Which if anyone is looking forward is greatly concerning for the next mutations

 

Notes

1. Think of antibodies as soldiers, with mRNA being the pick of the platoon - perhaps a bit bigger, fitter, stronger than the rest, but largely with the same equipment.

A few of them patrolling around the walls still cant hold a fort against even a few enemies entering, but a lot of them all over the fort would make short work of any that snuck in - and there are more around the walls guarding against entry anyway

 

2, The immune response will likely rebuild anti-bodies if infected/contact, but how fast? Fast enough to prevent spread and severe illness? In some yes, in others (including olde - unlikely)

 

3. Effectively they have had an extra dose/contact giving the body more practice to fight it .. unless their immune system is compromised for some reason .. and in that case - more vaccine doses at regular intervals seems effective.

 

In all these issue there are those who are naturally resistant to this sort of infection (or their lungs clear better) anyway and they would have been the survivors without the vaccines - just like the great epidemic a century ago.

BUT - even with those, there is the issue of the damage to the body that this virus does - although that also is strongly linked to severe infection ... commonly through damage to lungs, nervous system (inc brain) and heart.

 

Lets also not forget that a LOT of perhaps the most susceptible people have died in the previous waves, reducing the number of 'easy' targets for the virus and many of us have been far more 'careful' than would have been normal. Add to that the extra protections most of us will now have from the vaccine ..

 

BUT

The speed (from even brief contact) and ease with which Omicrom seems to be spreading may work around and through all those protections ... and spread/transmission = further mutations

[tobyjugg2]

29 minutes ago, hightail said:

I think those of us who weren't in the very first cohort have had the benefit of the longer interval between the first two jabs.  They started out with the manufacturer's recommended four week interval and then went out to twelve weeks.  I'm pretty sure they then found that the longer interval was better, well it seems to have been for me.

 

 

 

I think the issue is trade off between fall off vs extended but lower protection and as you said before - availability

A jab every 3 months would keep your body primed to max to fight off the infection - undoubtedly some who have access/money/power are doing this

Vaccines would soon run out if all had that

 

With earlier versions of the virus - six months seemed OK. Omicron seems to need a well primed and ready body to 'defeat it.

.. Which I'm not entirely convinced by but cant think of a better option other than more targeted vaccines .. which may have other issues.

 

Omicron is the stealth bomber of this war and odds seem to be we may end up with multiple dangerous mutations breakout in multiple locations once omicron is endemic.

I dont know the answer to this

 

[hightail]

4 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

2, The immune response will likely rebuild anti-bodies if infected/contact, but how fast? Fast enough to prevent spread and severe illness? In some yes, in others (including olde - unlikely)

Response is so individual.  I'd like to think that a good antibody response is an indicator of worthwhile T cells but I don't think I've seen anything which guarantees that.  I can't think it wouldn't be in my case as it's most likely exercise which has kept my immune system fit.

[tobyjugg2]

On 09/12/2021 at 07:12, unclebulgaria67 said:

Economics before health ?  Hospitality sector on its knees financially, so Government does not want to see many businesses fail. 

 

Christmas is when money is made, so any proper lockdown will happen in January.

 

Hospitals may be on their knees shortly - Johnson is juggling hospitality vs hospitalisation