D&D Coronavirus thread

Here's the paper: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v2.full.pdf

Additional context may explain the negative vaccine efficacy.

The time period studied in this report is November 20th through December 12th. Denmark reinstituted their vaccine passport on November 12th. So you're required to present the Coronapas to access public transit, salons, churches, bars, restaurants, night clubs, indoor events over 200 people, outdoor events over 2000 people, and amusement parks. To get a valid Coronapas, you need proof of vaccination, previous infection less than 6 months ago, or a negative PCR results less than 72 hours old or rapid test less than 48 hours old.

So the behavior of vaccinated and unvaccinated people are likely extremely different in Denmark. So the lesson from the paper should be that if you put in a vaccine passport system that severely inconvenience the unvaccinated, then they're less likely to be catch Omicron than the vaccinated people with few limitations.

EDIT: Now that I think about it more, what I said above may not be a good explanation it since the vaccine still did a fine job with Delta. So something must be different between Delta and Omicron. The author of the paper suggests that it may be due to the nature of Omicron spreading most in super-spreading events which are primarily attended by vaccinated people. This discrepancy could also be due to the relatively small number of Omicron infections studied (3,000 case compared to Delta's 40,000 cases), so a few super-spreading events could bias the result.

This is very interesting and I hope there are more studies about this in the future. If the vaccine does make someone more vulnerable to Omicron, but not Delta. I'd be very interested in seeing what possible immunological mechanism that could explain it.

 

There was lots of data early on about this element of transmission - it's why sustained contact and close contact became the standard instead of random contact. And why where was less transmission at places like grocery stores vs indoors at someone's house. I don't think the viral load part is particularly controversial or questioned. On the vaccine side, the whole methodology/design of the vaccine is to prevent reproduction so if the vaccines are having any effect, it's in reducing viral load - and then that results in whatever physical benefits the person gets from being vaccinated.

Absolutely - I imagine far more vaccinated people are asymptomatic relative to unvaccinated. That would only make sense that mild disease is less in vaccinated people, since hospitalization and death are also less in that group.

That's because it doesn't prevent transmission - it did with the original variant for the most part. If you were vaccinated, you were extremely unlikely to transmit because the viral loads were so low. But with Delta and Omicron, they viral loads are higher so it simply reduces transmission and that's a pain in the ass to try to explain in nuance in public health communications.

I'd agree here in theory and if you could evaluate each person's activity, that would be ideal. But it's also much more complex to do when determining dinner guests, for example. I suspect there's a high degree of correlation between "unvaccinated" and "less like to wear masks" and "more likely be around lots of people" and "unlikely to take precautions seriously" etc. And same in the inverse - high correlation between "vaccinated" and "wear masks" and "take precautions". So vaccination status serves as a more utilitarian proxy for "is this person likely trying to be safe" (as well as worst case, does this person have a lower viral load / infectiousness).

 

Those all sound like way better reasons than “they are unvaccinated” to me. And just to be clear, I wasn’t arguing that you should let them come, I was just arguing that when it comes to exposure it is (or should be) a more complicated decision than unvaccinated vs vaccinated.

I visited elderly family back in august of this year and I got a one month membership to planet fitness so I could maintain my workout schedule. I went once and then wouldn’t go back because I felt I was taking too great a risk in catching it and giving it to my family (I got my second Pfizer shot in May). When thinking about it at that time I realized that I didn’t care if everyone in the gym was vaccinated or not, it was still too great a risk for me to take. Delta transmission was likely less for the vaccinated but it wasn’t clear how much less and it was still a risk regardless.

 

I agree with this for a pre-Delta world, but since Delta studies seem to show the viral load is pretty much the same in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals (I linked this lancet study in another post that was just one of the top results when i went looking). The vaccine still reduces severe disease and hospitalization, so i am not sure how all of the science fits together with viral load. I assume that despite the viral load being the same, the body is just better equipped to fight off that same amount of load, which is why it reduces severe disease but not so much transmission.

I agree that nuance is difficult to communicate, but I also think that the chosen route of communication has basically permanently alienated people. If the nuanced approach was taken I could see us being in a world where ~ the same number of people have been vaccinated but with the remaining unvaccinated population remaining more open to it. I've mentioned nuance before (not on this board) and received the response before that "it is the 21st century, nuance is dead" and that is something that seems true but i will forever try to fight against (likely to my own detriment).

Yeah, evaluating habits doesn't scale well, but I don't really see much of an alternative if you're trying to protect someone more vulnerable. I agree in principle that an unvaccinated person may be more likely to forgo all precautions they can, but I just wanted to point out that there is also the "i'm vaccinated so my life can return to normal" population that like forgoes whatever precautions they can as well. Also with vaccine mandates (in SF), it is almost entirely the vaccinated that will be eating indoors without a mask. So i think if you only know "vaccinated" vs "unvaccinated" about a person and you absolutely have to choose one, I agree the "vaccinated" would be the safer choice. My inclination would be to pick neither if I know i am visiting someone vulnerable soon.

 

Where did i mention "exercise" or "eat healthier foods"? I mentioned "riskier lifestyle", which i meant to mean going to see a movie or dining indoors. Things that increase someone's chances of contracting covid. I'm not defending anyone making a decision to vaccinate or not vaccinate based no political reasons or inclinations. I think each person should take their own risks into account and make the decision that is best for them. Whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, they should take less risks in the weeks leading up to visiting others or those more vulnerable regardless.

And i'd just like to point out that the only "political" topic in this conversation is you mentioning "political reasons" out of no where. I feel like you're making (most likely incorrect) assumptions about my political affiliations.

 

This guy watches ALOT of cable news
Look at his post history , you cancel your Comcast subscription
@Os Trigonum

there’s the real world where me, you and Keanu live
And there’s this place where these dudes are stuck in

 

Jury is still out on omicron's behavior.

Delta minus variants can go wild on your immune system and the longer it takes for it to respond, the more likely symptoms from long covid surface... Lack of smelling, brain fog, heart inflammation, sars like lung scarring....

Vaccines make that virus less "novel". It's like putting out wanted posters for a new type of criminal. Doesn't catch the criminal but makes spotting them a lot sooner than not having the poster.

So there's really 2 main goals for vaccination. Preventing debilitating hospitalization from that novel nature and a lack of immune response.

Preventing infection, which when vaccinated, is mostly harmless albeit inconvenient for most young, non-immunocompromised, and healthy (not morbidly obese, no liver or kidney issues, not a heavy smoker)

If Omi is as infectious as billed, then you're rolling two or three dices as a unvaxxer. First one is chance of infection (a little higher than Delta). Then there's a chance of hospitalization which maybe less than others(TBD...). Getting a winning roll ups the chances you spread to others and the dice game continues.

It really is like drunk driving (in isolation) because most drunk drivers don't **** up until beyond the 20-30th time

 

I disagree with vaccine mandates because I don’t think the vaccine makes sense for everyone. If it curbed transmission I would be for it.

I think stores should be provided single use masks via government funding and customers should have to wear the one time use mask while in the store, regardless of if they are currently wearing one. That is how Stanford hospital has been doing it throughout the pandemic when I’ve gone for an appointment. I don’t think just saying “masks are required” is particularly helpful with thin cloth masks that people wear for months at a time.

 

vaccine slowing that spread

 

So, please tell us @Commodore, how are deaths and hospitalizations in NYC now vs. last year.

 

You realize that unless someone else on his feed tweets that info, he's useless, right?

 

All that needs to be said is after your first comma.

 

I would think it's simply that vaccinate people are more likely to take risks than unvaccinated people but at 150 days, don't realize their protection is gone and thus are much more likely to get omicron.

 

Fastest disease ever?

 

All aboard!

 

point is restrictions on human liberty aren't slowing the spread

vaccines, treatments, and a changing virus are what impact deaths/hospitalizations