Will Covid 19 impact 2022 season?

[Just_a_fan]

The name 'flu is actually short for viral influence, so it would be correct

The word influenza comes from Italian for "influence" because back in the middle ages people thought it was caused by weird stuff such as astrology because they knew nothing about viruses etc.

Influenza is caused by the influenza virus. There is a whole group of influenza viruses. The well known H1N1, H5N1, etc., are all varieties of influenzavirus A. They have their own genus - Alphainfluenzavirus - and the scientific name is Alphainfluenzavirus influenza A. There are three other genus for different influenza virus types, named (in original fashion) B, C and D.

So, no, calling an infection caused by Covid "flu" would be entirely incorrect. An infection caused by Covid would a SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome).

Which won't stop people calling it 'flu, of course.

I have to disagree with you, Viral influenzas is literally being under the influence of a virus, but there we go I will not argue with you.

What I will do, and please excuse me all as this is nothing at all to do with motorsport, but a very good watch, is post this here
It is a graphic representation of immunity by vaccination, or possibly what would eventually happen if no one was vaccinated bit much of the population had immunity through having had it previously

You can disagree all you like. Influenza is caused by the influenza virus. That's why it's caused "the influenza virus". If you have the HIV virus, you're under the influence of a virus but you don't have viral influenza, do you?

Anyhoooo, cool video.

[Big Tea]

BTW, in case anyone thinks I'm a Covid fear monger.

I'm in an above-low risk group as I'm almost 50 (only a few days to go!) and I have high blood pressure. That puts me 1 or 2% above you in the risk of dying from it.

I work in a field that has had to carry on and so I've been working throughout, travelling to visit sites etc. Don't have much choice about that, sadly, as I couldn't get any of the financial help offered by the Government. Ah well.

I don't have a problem with trying to protect the vulnerable although I do increasingly wonder if the long term financial hit - which will affect the young most - is worth it to protect the very old. I was surprised to see how many old people there are in the UK.

There are nearly 12 million (11,989,322) people aged 65 and above in the UK of which:
o 5.4 million people are aged 75+,
o 1.6 million are aged 85+,
o Over 500,000 people are 90+ (579,776)
o 14,430 are centenarians (ONS, 2018f, 2018e)

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/globalassets/a ... tsheet.pdf

That's 12 million out of 66 million. c.18% of the population is over 65. That's quite surprising and, of course, why it's been so difficult to protect/vaccinate them all. My parents are still alive but I haven't seen them in over a year as, being at risk of picking up the virus owing to my work, I'm staying well away from them.

Something else to consider though, every one person who becomes infected rises the likelihood of another mutation.

[nzjrs]

I don't have a problem with trying to protect the vulnerable although I do increasingly wonder if the long term financial hit - which will affect the young most - is worth it to protect the very old. I was surprised to see how many old people there are in the UK.

Absolutely, that was also my reaction - that there are so many elderly in the UK. Very surprising to me.

But yes, I don't want to turn this to politics too much, but financially its going to be a long term disaster for the under 30s. 1 year or more out of their careers and saving progression, and 10-20 percent increase in house prices in one year due to monetary policy.

Meanwhile, those with capital (houses) or stocks have seen an astronomical year because of all the money printing going on.

Its a catastrophe, an absolute disaster.

Rich get richer, poor get poorer. It's always been this way, but the rate of change in the last >12 months has been astronomical.

[Tommy Cookers]

I don't have a problem with trying to protect the vulnerable although I do increasingly wonder if the long term financial hit - which will affect the young most - is worth it to protect the very old. I was surprised to see how many old people there are in the UK.

Absolutely, that was also my reaction - that there are so many elderly in the UK. Very surprising to me.
But yes, I don't want to turn this to politics too much, but financially its going to be a long term disaster for the under 30s. 1 year or more out of their careers and saving progression, and 10-20 percent increase in house prices in one year due to monetary policy.
Meanwhile, those with capital (houses) or stocks have seen an astronomical year because of all the money printing going on.
Its a catastrophe, an absolute disaster.
Rich get richer, poor get poorer. It's always been this way, but the rate of change in the last >12 months has been astronomical.

nobody is protecting the very old or the old - except themselves
(and how can the 'many' old be the 'very' old ?)
it's particularly a long term disaster for those who have died (the UK will have c.250000 real dead)
hold on !! - the BBC says today that deaths have fallen - so the dead are coming back to life ?

how can the assets of 250000 dead ahead-of-schedule not be a bonus to the surviving ?
the UK's biggest economic turndown for 3 centuries is forecast to produce a fall in property values
and the UK stock market has fallen

most of the UK old already vaccinated received the Pfizer vaccine (the one that works)
from now on most of those vaccinated will receive the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine ('the one that doesn't work')
if such people then emerge from their self-shielding many will become infected - and so die
the Prime Minister will look sad and mildly baffled and tell us that he has found this tragic .....
and everyone (surviving) will carry on living

[nzjrs]

Sure, property values might fall in future with the predicted downturn, but in the previous 12 months they have not - rather the opposite. Time will tell of course. I think the FTSE is still a few percent down from 12 months ago, the DOW NASDAQ and SP500 are all now higher. If you held you might be down, if you played or were diversified you should be well up. But that's off topic I guess.

This is not me equating death with financial prosperity btw, it's just how it turned out.

[hUirEYExbN]

....
from now on most of those vaccinated will receive the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine ('the one that doesn't work')
....

It doesn't work? That's a big claim, can you back it up?

[Big Tea]

I don't have a problem with trying to protect the vulnerable although I do increasingly wonder if the long term financial hit - which will affect the young most - is worth it to protect the very old. I was surprised to see how many old people there are in the UK.

Absolutely, that was also my reaction - that there are so many elderly in the UK. Very surprising to me.
But yes, I don't want to turn this to politics too much, but financially its going to be a long term disaster for the under 30s. 1 year or more out of their careers and saving progression, and 10-20 percent increase in house prices in one year due to monetary policy.
Meanwhile, those with capital (houses) or stocks have seen an astronomical year because of all the money printing going on.
Its a catastrophe, an absolute disaster.
Rich get richer, poor get poorer. It's always been this way, but the rate of change in the last >12 months has been astronomical.

nobody is protecting the very old or the old - except themselves
(and how can the 'many' old be the 'very' old ?)
it's particularly a long term disaster for those who have died (the UK will have c.250000 real dead)
hold on !! - the BBC says today that deaths have fallen - so the dead are coming back to life ?

how can the assets of 250000 dead ahead-of-schedule not be a bonus to the surviving ?
the UK's biggest economic turndown for 3 centuries is forecast to produce a fall in property values
and the UK stock market has fallen

most of the UK old already vaccinated received the Pfizer vaccine (the one that works)
from now on most of those vaccinated will receive the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine ('the one that doesn't work')
if such people then emerge from their self-shielding many will become infected - and so die
the Prime Minister will look sad and mildly baffled and tell us that he has found this tragic .....
and everyone (surviving) will carry on living

"A single standard dose of vaccine provided 76% protection overall against symptomatic covid-19 in the first 90 days after vaccination" ..."efficacy reached 82.4% after a second dose"

I believe there is a large reduction in medium to serious and I think zero deaths for anyone who has had the jab 20 days

From this - https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n326


I have had it and am quite happy. There is a probability of a 'tweak' to the second dose.

[Tommy Cookers]

OAZ seems unable to test their vaccine on old people
and no 'expert' says that vaccinations will prevent all deaths in the vulnerable groups eg 90% is the best I've heard

iirc and eg you (B.T.) once wrote that you were washing with IPA the wrappers of bread after purchase ......
I assume that after your 'full immunity' you will eg return to conventional wrapper action ? ......
and even if the public infectivity levels are (as presently) c.15000 daily new cases ??

in-population infection rates have fallen only slowly with the lockdown - and have already stopped falling in many areas
how won't they again and soon rocket up ?
(it's not oldies that spread the infection)

btw 799 died today

[Big Tea]

OAZ seems unable to test their vaccine on old people
and no 'expert' says that vaccinations will prevent all deaths in the vulnerable groups eg 90% is the best I've heard

iirc and eg you (B.T.) once wrote that you were washing with IPA the wrappers of bread after purchase ......
I assume that after your 'full immunity' you will eg return to conventional wrapper action ? ......
and even if the public infectivity levels are (as presently) c.15000 new cases/week/100000 ??

new cases have fallen only slowly with the lockdown - and have already stopped falling in many areas
how won't they again and soon rocket up ?
(it's not oldies that spread the infection)

btw 799 died today

Not at all, I will carry on as I have been It has worked so far, why change.
As you say, there is no such thing as full immunity, just as there is not way to stay dry out in a rain storm, but I prefer to have a coat, as it will help.

It does seem to be slightly less effective v the south Africa variant, but still many times better than No vax.
I could point you to some of these studies, but as you seem to have made your mind up anything I suggest will probably be considered bias reporting, but chose your own site and report, they are all quite close.

As for 'unable to test their vaccine on old people' the tests were done on random age samples and all had the same result. There was a sample of people over 80 just as there was of under 25. As I said above, I believe there are few to no hospitalisations deaths from covid 19 with people who have had the OAZ vax over 20 days.

Which ever, it was available and I took it. The option was not having it, and that is a no brainer.

( I was left with post chemo problems so in the at risk group and got it early, and did not need inviting twice)

[adrianjordan]

OAZ seems unable to test their vaccine on old people
and no 'expert' says that vaccinations will prevent all deaths in the vulnerable groups eg 90% is the best I've heard

iirc and eg you (B.T.) once wrote that you were washing with IPA the wrappers of bread after purchase ......
I assume that after your 'full immunity' you will eg return to conventional wrapper action ? ......
and even if the public infectivity levels are (as presently) c.15000 daily new cases ??

in-population infection rates have fallen only slowly with the lockdown - and have already stopped falling in many areas
how won't they again and soon rocket up ?
(it's not oldies that spread the infection)

btw 799 died today

How do you get ethical approval to test a vaccine on an age group vastly more at risk of dying and who have been advised to shield??

You don't. That is why they couldn't test on that age group. If they had, the trial would take years because they would have to recruit sufficient subjects in that age group to give meaningful results.

Lab work and extrapolation by experts (remember them?) can account for this.

It only media outlets or popular science outlets trying to generate clicks who are bringing that up. No-one I know in the medical community is talking about it at all.

This is what happens when lay people try to understand complicated scientific principles.

[Tommy Cookers]

OAZ seems unable to test their vaccine on old people
and no 'expert' says that vaccinations will prevent all deaths in the vulnerable groups eg 90% is the best I've heard

in-population infection rates have fallen only slowly with the lockdown - and have already stopped falling in many areas
how won't they again and soon rocket up ? (it's not oldies that spread the infection)

How do you get ethical approval to test a vaccine on an age group vastly more at risk of dying and who have been advised to shield?? .....

Pfizer did
their tests had something like 5 vaccinated deaths and 106 unvaccinated deaths
this 'immunity score' suggests about a twentyfold greater chance of survival (than without any vaccination)

nobody is telling the OAZ-vaccinated to shield for another 6 or 12 months ......
but eg TV news (at the whim of self-serving editors and writers) has spouted on about 'hugging your grandchildren'

so how many more people will die ? .....
(not unreasonably thinking that 'full immunity' means that they are immune)

[Big Tea]

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n295

Covid-19: AstraZeneca vaccine is approved in EU with no upper age limit
BMJ 2021; 372 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n295 (Published 01 February 2021)

[Just_a_fan]

It's worth noting that the Pfizer and the OAZ vaccines are very different. Pfizer uses RNA excerpts to initiate an immune response, OAZ uses a modified virus to act as a vector to initiate immune response. They can't be directly compared and nor can their trial methodologies.

As it happens, both are now approved for the full range of age groups.

[nevill3]

The UK are also trialling using a different vaccine for the second dose, this method is already used for other viruses and can give a higher overall immunity

[Just_a_fan]

The UK are also trialling using a different vaccine for the second dose, this method is already used for other viruses and can give a higher overall immunity

That's more to do with supply than efficacy of outcome, to be fair. HMG appear to be taking a "give as many people as possible a first jab, then give them whatever is available as a second jab" approach. This may be give excellent results but that's just fortuitous rather than planned.