Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

[Ethan]

A virologist was talking about this on Sunday. He was quite relaxed about it incidentally, not running around screaming, hands in the air. He described the new variant as 'more sticky'. I love that phrase. Apparently it grabs onto you, your cells or whatever and is harder to shake off. Whereas a small dose of the original could be knocked off, beaten up by your system, this new one clings on and stays on you, thus increasing its chances of the infection taking hold. How much or little is needed I don't know but presumably it is less.

All normal according to this bloke, a natural evolution of the virus. He wasn't worried so oddly it made me very calm about it. The vaccine is still the answer, it is rolling out. We just have to keep sensible until more of us have been jabbed. Not different to before really.

He is not wrong. Virus enters cells by binding to a receptor. Essentially a part of the virus, in this case the spike protein, is shaped such that it roughly its into another shaped protein on the epithelium (lining of mouth, throat, lungs). Think trying to findthe right size of Phillips head screwdriver for a slightly stuck screw head. This variant has a slightly better fit than previous versions, so it has a better shot at opening it up and entering the cell, where it will start replicating. A virus is basically a mobile gene factory. With evolution, which for viruses is days/weeks/months, some of the viruses which fit just a shade better take over and squeeze out the rest, and then it repeats.

It isn't just one virus trying this, it is a small army. It appears this variant comes in larger numbers, so makes more attempts, and each attempt is slightly more likely to succeed. Taken together, that is a big rise in transmissibility.

It was inevitable that Tier 4 would have to broaden, and they aren't done yet.

 

[Old Skier]

If the desired strategy is to reduce overall risk in the population, one dose for everyone is a better policy because it is faster and the overall bang for your buck is better. It may not offer the same level of protection to each individual as two doses, but as well as your personal benefit, you also get some additional protection when the population risk falls because everyone else is even partially protected.

However, it hasn't been formally studied for the Pfizer/Moderna/AZ vaccine (although I think the Johnson and Johnson vaccine may be adopting this approach), but we are in uncharted territory and getting a critical mass protected is needed asafp.

That graphic from the Pfizer study, posted previously here, makes a good case for it, though.

Yet it was reported on the news that scientists indicated that further research would be required before this strategy could be adopted which would cause further delay while it went through the necessary procedures and received clearance for use.

Catch 22

 

[Ethan]

Yes, I remembered your post, and it started me thinking on similar lines.
As far as I can remember,, I don't think you had a satisfactory answer.
( not saying you should have had, because us forummers are not the fount of all knowledge ?,) but there hasn't been anything like an explanation given on TV etc that I know of, and I would have thought someone on there would have made a point of pressing this question, just so we would know better what to do or not to do

I think this has been answered - more viral invaders, each of which is a bit stickier (ahem, Lord Tyrion).

 

[Swinglowandslow]

If the desired strategy is to reduce overall risk in the population, one dose for everyone is a better policy because it is faster and the overall bang for your buck is better. It may not offer the same level of protection to each individual as two doses, but as well as your personal benefit, you also get some additional protection when the population risk falls because everyone else is even partially protected.

However, it hasn't been formally studied for the Pfizer/Moderna/AZ vaccine (although I think the Johnson and Johnson vaccine may be adopting this approach), but we are in uncharted territory and getting a critical mass protected is needed asafp.

That graphic from the Pfizer study, posted previously here, makes a good case for it, though.

Yes, I agree . Particularly your first paragraph- so, rhetorically, why isn't it being done. Makes you feel like ringing No. 10. Anyone know the number??

 

[Tashyboy]

There’s something about these Covid mutations that is intriguing me but bogging me off at the same time.

Missis T said from day one it will mutate. They have. Nowt genius there if you have worked in the NHS . No differant to the flu every year. It’s differant.

France and the rest of the world ( mainly Europe) imposed restrictions on the UK because it identified a new more infectious strain of the Covid virus. Not supposed to be more deadly, but more infectious. But why? The UK is allegedly one of the world leaders in testing for these viruses. So as I see it in a layman’s term. If your not looking for it you won’t find it. The Uk found it. But was the new strain from here. To put it in a golfing sense, not all golf balls you find are yours. Furthermore, when the UK stopped France from being a safe travel corridor because of high levels of Covid in France. The French response was “ there will be repercussions”. ?

The reason am having a rant is because the UK has now identified a new strain of the virus which “ originated” in South Africa. Or did it? Again the UK is looking for the strains and found someone else’s “ golf ball”.

Tashyboy cannot help but think that throughout all these troubled times, people are playing politics more than thinking about people’s lives.

 

[Ethan]

Yet it was reported on the news that scientists indicated that further research would be required before this strategy could be adopted which would cause further delay while it went through the necessary procedures and received clearance for use.

Catch 22

It is a tricky one for Govt. They have geared up for 2 doses, bought a load of vaccines, and although an attractive idea to get through people twice as fast, the idea of settling for less than optimal coverage per person and the unlicensed nature of one dose would make it, as Sir Humphrey would have said, a very courageous decision. If scientific opinion swung behind it, and there was broad political support, though ...

I think public opinion would depend a bit where you are in the pecking order. If you have had the first vacc or will soon have it, you are probably more inclined to say you would prefer the second one too, thanks. If you are going to have to wait 4 or 5 months but feel you are at risk, you would be very glad of one. If you are a young whippersnapper who thinks they will live for ever, you probably don't really care either way.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

I think this has been answered - more viral invaders, each of which is a bit stickier (ahem, Lord Tyrion).

Yes, I saw that. And understand. However, I must say , up until this variant, that I had uppermost in my mind that the prevention was in not getting ANY of the dose of the virus.
You are saying , are you not, that many of us have had some virus introduced into our system, but not in large enough quantities to register, and we reject it and thus we don't get infected.
Now, with the new variant, these little doses are there, just like before, but they are registering?
So, 4 balls on the open golf course may not be the same safe thing??

 

[Old Skier]

It is a tricky one for Govt. They have geared up for 2 doses, bought a load of vaccines, and although an attractive idea to get through people twice as fast, the idea of settling for less than optimal coverage per person and the unlicensed nature of one dose would make it, as Sir Humphrey would have said, a very courageous decision. If scientific opinion swung behind it, and there was broad political support, though ...

I think public opinion would depend a bit where you are in the pecking order. If you have had the first vacc or will soon have it, you are probably more inclined to say you would prefer the second one too, thanks. If you are going to have to wait 4 or 5 months but feel you are at risk, you would be very glad of one. If you are a young whippersnapper who thinks they will live for ever, you probably don't really care either way.

Goes back to the idea of vaccine passports which I can’t see how it is that viable unless all travel is suspended or is the “old I’m all right jack” attitude.

 

[Ethan]

There’s something about these Covid mutations that is intriguing me but bogging me off at the same time.

Missis T said from day one it will mutate. They have. Nowt genius there if you have worked in the NHS . No differant to the flu every year. It’s differant.

France and the rest of the world ( mainly Europe) imposed restrictions on the UK because it identified a new more infectious strain of the Covid virus. Not supposed to be more deadly, but more infectious. But why? The UK is allegedly one of the world leaders in testing for these viruses. So as I see it in a layman’s term. If your not looking for it you won’t find it. The Uk found it. But was the new strain from here. To put it in a golfing sense, not all golf balls you find are yours. Furthermore, when the UK stopped France from being a safe travel corridor because of high levels of Covid in France. The French response was “ there will be repercussions”. ?

The reason am having a rant is because the UK has now identified a new strain of the virus which “ originated” in South Africa. Or did it? Again the UK is looking for the strains and found someone else’s “ golf ball”.

Tashyboy cannot help but think that throughout all these troubled times, people are playing politics more than thinking about people’s lives.

It is probably all over Europe, but I think it is hard to blame France from stoping movement until they get some idea what is going on.

The whole thing has been political, in every country, whether it is Tory back benchers, SNP or whatever here, Sinn Fein vs Fine Gael and Fianna Fail in Ireland, Trump and the culture warriors versus the Dems and Fauci in the US etc etc.

If it wasn't so scary, the mutations and viral evolution is fascinating. Like a microcosm of human evolution but in a hugely compressed time period. Random errors in the viral genetics create small differences. Those which offer an evolutionary advantage take over at the expense of those that don't, so the virus refines itself over time, same way that humans are getting taller, stronger, living longer (OK, nutrition nd health are part of it, but they are products of evolution too). One interesting element is that viral replication is impaired if the host population dies off, so viruses tend to become more transmissible but less pathogenic over time. Even now and again a Frankenvirus pops up which breaks this pattern, but then it too tends to evolve in the same direction.

 

[BubbaP]

He is not wrong. Virus enters cells by binding to a receptor. Essentially a part of the virus, in this case the spike protein, is shaped such that it roughly its into another shaped protein on the epithelium (lining of mouth, throat, lungs). Think trying to findthe right size of Phillips head screwdriver for a slightly stuck screw head. This variant has a slightly better fit than previous versions, so it has a better shot at opening it up and entering the cell, where it will start replicating. A virus is basically a mobile gene factory. With evolution, which for viruses is days/weeks/months, some of the viruses which fit just a shade better take over and squeeze out the rest, and then it repeats.

It isn't just one virus trying this, it is a small army. It appears this variant comes in larger numbers, so makes more attempts, and each attempt is slightly more likely to succeed. Taken together, that is a big rise in transmissibility.

It was inevitable that Tier 4 would have to broaden, and they aren't done yet.

I think most have been in agreement on here that the risk profile is different indoors (higher) verses outdoors.
Whilst that distinction will remain might this variant move the outdoor risk sufficiently to make us rethink golf. Tricky one.

 

[Ethan]

Yes, I saw that. And understand. However, I must say , up until this variant, that I had uppermost in my mind that the prevention was in not getting ANY of the dose of the virus.
You are saying , are you not, that many of us have had some virus introduced into our system, but not in large enough quantities to register, and we reject it and thus we don't get infected.
Now, with the new variant, these little doses are there, just like before, but they are registering?
So, 4 balls on the open golf course may not be the same safe thing??

Probably, and your innate immunity, the non-specific protection from barriers, mucus, some blood cells which non-specifically attack stuff that looks vaguely suspicious all offer resistance, and that might be enough. If the dose is too large, that immunity is not enough, and some people, older, immunosuppressed etc have even less of it in the first place.

Outside is safer because of dispersal rescuing viral load, and possibly the effect of direct UV light.

I think that not making a bigger distinction between poorly ventilated indoors and being outdoors was a failing of previous advice.

 

[clubchamp98]

That would be the big one. I have no particular issues with a health passport but you cannot tell the younger part of the population who are at the bottom of the vaccine list that not only are their short term (maybe longer in some cases) lives ruined but you also cannot travel as you haven't got a passport which you have no chances of getting any time soon.

I think the last bit will be decided by where you are going.
If that country says you need one , you get one or go elsewhere.
Domestically can’t be fair until everyone has had the option of a vaccine after that though it’s your own fault if you have refused one.
You are then excluding yourself.

 

[Ethan]

I think most have been in agreement on here that the risk profile is different indoors (higher) verses outdoors.
Whilst that distinction will remain might this variant move the outdoor risk sufficiently to make us rethink golf. Tricky one.

In my view, this new variant increases the risk both indoors and out, but arguably increases the risk indoors more in relative terms. Even if the risk increased by the reported 70%, that still leaves the outdoors risk pretty low, but moves the risk in confined space in a highish prevalence area to red alert.

 

[Ethan]

I think the last bit will be decided by where you are going.
If that country says you need one , you get one or go elsewhere.
Domestically can’t be fair until everyone has had the option of a vaccine after that though it’s your own fault if you have refused one.
You are then excluding yourself.

There airlines also don't fancy any liability from someone who infects a plane land of people, so they will start to insist too.

 

[clubchamp98]

There’s something about these Covid mutations that is intriguing me but bogging me off at the same time.

Missis T said from day one it will mutate. They have. Nowt genius there if you have worked in the NHS . No differant to the flu every year. It’s differant.

France and the rest of the world ( mainly Europe) imposed restrictions on the UK because it identified a new more infectious strain of the Covid virus. Not supposed to be more deadly, but more infectious. But why? The UK is allegedly one of the world leaders in testing for these viruses. So as I see it in a layman’s term. If your not looking for it you won’t find it. The Uk found it. But was the new strain from here. To put it in a golfing sense, not all golf balls you find are yours. Furthermore, when the UK stopped France from being a safe travel corridor because of high levels of Covid in France. The French response was “ there will be repercussions”. ?

The reason am having a rant is because the UK has now identified a new strain of the virus which “ originated” in South Africa. Or did it? Again the UK is looking for the strains and found someone else’s “ golf ball”.

Tashyboy cannot help but think that throughout all these troubled times, people are playing politics more than thinking about people’s lives.

I agree.
If most people have to self isolate for 10/14 days what is a 48 hour port closure all about.
Plus letting French nationals back first, they are Europeans and should all wait their turn.

 

[clubchamp98]

There airlines also don't fancy any liability from someone who infects a plane land of people, so they will start to insist too.

It will be like an ESTA to get into the USA.
If you try and con the US Border control you are in big trouble they take no prisoners.
But while the French have closed their border , we are still letting anyone in who wants to come.
Except South Africans atm but that’s going to have to change to most of Europe judging by the news.

What confuses me is “ you can’t travel out of your tier 4 area , but you can enter the country from almost anywhere in the world” assuming quarantine restrictions.

 

[Old Skier]

Time to play the Macron game

 

[IanM]

Only the French havent closed the border.... just one.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Yes, and they could update that booster with the latest genetic variants, which will have changed a few more time between now and then. It is pretty easy to do that compared to reengineering the flu vaccine, more like a firmware update.

OMG. That's even more of a case for using all the now available vaccine as Blair and you suggest. I do not doubt what you are saying, Ethan. I am quite frustrated that it isn't being implemented, or that being stated that it will be.
I can only hope that your organisation and other medical ones start getting on to the Authorities.

 

[Tashyboy]

It is a tricky one for Govt. They have geared up for 2 doses, bought a load of vaccines, and although an attractive idea to get through people twice as fast, the idea of settling for less than optimal coverage per person and the unlicensed nature of one dose would make it, as Sir Humphrey would have said, a very courageous decision. If scientific opinion swung behind it, and there was broad political support, though ...

I think public opinion would depend a bit where you are in the pecking order. If you have had the first vacc or will soon have it, you are probably more inclined to say you would prefer the second one too, thanks. If you are going to have to wait 4 or 5 months but feel you are at risk, you would be very glad of one. If you are a young whippersnapper who thinks they will live for ever, you probably don't really care either way.

Belatedly me and Missis Tash watched the Oxford Covid vaccine programme the other night. It was excellent. Even on there they said more than one vaccine is required. For me it is nit picking asking for one vaccine injection when six months ago the whole world was desperate for any kind of vaccine. Quite frankly Tony Blair has contributed nothing to this Covid “ fight” for 9 months then asks for one single vaccine. Am not saying owt about him coz A, we don’t discuss politics and B he is a plank.