Covfefe-19 The 12th Part: The Only Thing Worse Than This New Board Is TrumpVirus2020

[Drew S.]

Stephen King right on the money tonight on Twitter when it comes to Covid in America. Covid won.

[The Sicatoka]

Just calling it "Covid" isn't scary enough, it's now "Ninja Covid"?

[Swansong]

There is so much fear mongering in that article (par for the course for that site).

BA.5 seems to be more contagious than even BA.2.12 (the main Omicron subvariant in the US), and worse, 3-dose vaccine (or 2-dose plus infection) doesn't have the same prophylaxis properties. However, it's wildly incorrect to say the vaccines "aren't as effective" because the true measure of effectivity is against severe illness or death - not against infection. And on that, the existing vaccines are outstanding.


The FDA is ridiculously dragging its feet and letting the "maybe better?" be the enemy of the good, and sort of pushing back against the BA.1 boosters that were developed to be more pan-variant than really targeted. The issue is that by the time the BA.4/.5-targeted boosters are approved it'll be late winter, long after when we need them. The BA.1 boosters put forward by Moderna and Pfizer have very good results and would be ready by the fall... if the FDA would stop being a group of clucking morons.

[wolverineTrumpet]

There is so much fear mongering in that article (par for the course for that site).

BA.5 seems to be more contagious than even BA.2.12 (the main Omicron subvariant in the US), and worse, 3-dose vaccine (or 2-dose plus infection) doesn't have the same prophylaxis properties. However, it's wildly incorrect to say the vaccines "aren't as effective" because the true measure of effectivity is against severe illness or death - not against infection. And on that, the existing vaccines are outstanding.


The FDA is ridiculously dragging its feet and letting the "maybe better?" be the enemy of the good, and sort of pushing back against the BA.1 boosters that were developed to be more pan-variant than really targeted. The issue is that by the time the BA.4/.5-targeted boosters are approved it'll be late winter, long after when we need them. The BA.1 boosters put forward by Moderna and Pfizer have very good results and would be ready by the fall... if the FDA would stop being a group of clucking morons.

I know 1 instance doesn't prove anything, but my double boosted parents made it through our trip without getting covid. Me, my bro, SIL, all 1 boost got covid. Husband fully vaccinated, not boosted also got it. Still thankful for vaccines as for all of us symptoms have been mild to bad cold, but nothing needing medical attention.

[dxmnkd316]

My brother's family got it. First people in my extended family to get it.

[Swansong]

I do think that article does a good job of expressing the real and serious concern that a still-circulating virus, even if if the severity is very mild for most, will continue to further mutate and potentially mutate into a new variant and here we go again. Having a good booster (like the two BA.1+ booster candidates) would increase protection from infection. Hell, a second booster of the current approved vaccines would be helpful for that. But the FDA continues to twiddle its thumbs on this.

[wolverineTrumpet]

I do think that article does a good job of expressing the real and serious concern that a still-circulating virus, even if if the severity is very mild for most, will continue to further mutate and potentially mutate into a new variant and here we go again. Having a good booster (like the two BA.1+ booster candidates) would increase protection from infection. Hell, a second booster of the current approved vaccines would be helpful for that. But the FDA continues to twiddle its thumbs on this.

are we at the point where the end game is like the flu shot? take a best guess at what the strain will be that year and vaccines are made based on that for a yearly shot?

[Swansong]

are we at the point where the end game is like the flu shot? take a best guess at what the strain will be that year and vaccines are made based on that for a yearly shot?

I don't know enough about the mutation rate of this virus vs. influenza to make an educated statement on that. It wouldn't surprise me if we had yearly boosters as immunity from infection seems fairly short. However, are the boosters going to need to be recajiggered yearly? No idea.

[Kepler]

Does mutation follow a path towards less lethality over time? Like in the beginning the early mutations jump around a lot but then as there are more mutations out there further mutations tend to be less and less virulent?

Did pre-19th century plagues recur because of new mutations or because immunity lapsed and then the same old variant just ripped through the gen pop again?

[dxmnkd316]

Does mutation follow a path towards less lethality over time? Like in the beginning the early mutations jump around a lot but then as there are more mutations out there further mutations tend to be less and less virulent?

Did pre-19th century plagues recur because of new mutations or because immunity lapsed and then the same old variant just ripped through the gen pop again?

Not necessarily. I remember reading this was a commonly told myth earlier on in the pandemic.

[Swansong]

Does mutation follow a path towards less lethality over time? Like in the beginning the early mutations jump around a lot but then as there are more mutations out there further mutations tend to be less and less virulent?

Did pre-19th century plagues recur because of new mutations or because immunity lapsed and then the same old variant just ripped through the gen pop again?

Sometimes? The best analogy I read was to think of a car. Infectivity is the driver. Severity is in the car as a passenger. Other aspects are passengers. The ability for the virus to continue relies entirely on its infectiousness. Severity, as the front seat passenger, has a large effect on the driver, but the infectiousness, as the driver, is still in control. If the severity is high, the patient won't have much of an opportunity to spread, regardless of how infectious the virus may be.

Think Ebola or Marburg vs. HIV. Ebola and Marburg are extremely severe and show obvious symptoms very soon. As such, a patient infected with either will tend to show symptoms - and possibly die - fairly soon. Meanwhile, HIV can linger for many years without showing symptoms, giving the patient much opportunity to spread it. HIV is not as infectious as ebola, however HIV has infected orders of magnitude more people than ebola or Marburg.


Then, to further complicate the question, people acquire immunity. Getting vaccinated is similar to being infected, as far as your immune system is concern. And being vaccinated and/or infected will reduce the severity (usually) as your body is better equipped to fight it off. Also, some infections/vaccines offer a long immunity that effectively last a given person's lifetime.


So yeah, great question with a very complicated answer. Yes with a "but". Or No with a "well maybe".

[Kepler]

Sometimes? The best analogy I read was to think of a car. Infectivity is the driver. Severity is in the car as a passenger. Other aspects are passengers. The ability for the virus to continue relies entirely on its infectiousness. Severity, as the front seat passenger, has a large effect on the driver, but the infectiousness, as the driver, is still in control. If the severity is high, the patient won't have much of an opportunity to spread, regardless of how infectious the virus may be.

Think Ebola or Marburg vs. HIV. Ebola and Marburg are extremely severe and show obvious symptoms very soon. As such, a patient infected with either will tend to show symptoms - and possibly die - fairly soon. Meanwhile, HIV can linger for many years without showing symptoms, giving the patient much opportunity to spread it. HIV is not as infectious as ebola, however HIV has infected orders of magnitude more people than ebola or Marburg.


Then, to further complicate the question, people acquire immunity. Getting vaccinated is similar to being infected, as far as your immune system is concern. And being vaccinated and/or infected will reduce the severity (usually) as your body is better equipped to fight it off. Also, some infections/vaccines offer a long immunity that effectively last a given person's lifetime.


So yeah, great question with a very complicated answer. Yes with a "but". Or No with a "well maybe".

Thank you. This is why I come here. And the Jeb's Mom jokes, of course.

[Swansong]

Virus mutation is absolutely ruthless evolution. The virus's sole job is to make more virus, so anything that impedes that, loses. Anything that furthers that continues on.

It's basically like the exact opposite of the GQP.

[leswp1]

papa in law les was admitted to hospital and found to have Covid incidentally. Learning experience. No need to notify contacts. mr les was in car with him for a long time, unmasked. So with exposure you might want to be careful until you know if you got it, right? Nope. Oh, no big deal. No need to be careful. Only test if you have sx. Lots of people are getting it and are asymptomatic.

papa in law is getting discharged today- no follow up testing, no instructions on how to keep those in his home safe, nothing. He lives with an at risk, unvaccinated older person. WT F

I feel like I am living in an alternate universe. No one cares if there might be an at risk person in the home? No one cares you are sending a vector into the community with people who are at risk?

So on the one hand reading all sorts of stuff about the long term effects of Covid on brain, reinfection of covid has potential for significant irreversible consequences, long covid may affect 1:5 people and other little tidbits saying we really should be paying attention to this stuff. But the CDC seems to care only if the economy is good and if you land in the ICU or a coffin. The messaging from CDC sucks and my trained in Public Health self is feeling gaslighted- I know bad things are there but NO THEY AREN'T! We are FINE

[dxmnkd316]

I think we should be careful about how we're measuring long covid because there isn't a concrete definition of what it actually is, nor do we assess the severity or length of symptoms very well. When I get a simple cold, I get knocked on my *** for a week and have a lingering cough for weeks. Most people are fully healthy within 3-5 days. Do I have long-rhinovirus?

One study I saw in one of the big journals showed that long covid (for however that study defined it) is almost indiscernible in numbers from background. Another study showed that long covid is about as problematic as "long influenza" for people hospitalized with influenza. Another yet suggested that long covid is a result of trauma, which can by the trauma of going through a pandemic and it manifesting with physical symptoms. I wish I had bookmarked these.

I would also be extremely cautious with any study that says there's a permanent disability from long covid for anything beyond a very, very small fraction of the population. We haven't seen disability numbers increase, they've gone down during the course of the pandemic. Certainly even that statistic should be viewed with caution as it probably has some survivor's bias wrapped in among other things.

But long covid and permanent disabilities just aren't showing up in the data. They exist, no one is denying that. But nowhere near the numbers some grifters like EFD are stating.

Edit: one thing to clarify, obviously it doesn't make it any better that long-influenza and long-covid potentially have similarities. It means that all viral diseases are potentially dangerous long after the acute phase passes. We're also seeing that with E-BV the more research that comes out. Anyways, my point isn't to say it doesn't exist. It does. I just think there's a lot of potentially bad information out there.