Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by boatman61

So basically all the Booster is doing is to increase the damage..
Good ongoing business management by Big Pharma..
Kinda reminds one how Oxycodone was once the Wonder Drug..
Once taken your Done..

The real question is whether the production of B and T immune cells recovers at some point post vaccination.

Could be serious implications for health amongst the vaccinated worldwide if that is not the case.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Greg K

Interesting new paper out of Sweden that should be of interest to anyone who is vaccinated. It postulates that (full length) spike proteins such as those produced by vaccination affect the production of B and T immune cells and thus impair adaptive immunity.

"…we report that the SARS–CoV–2 spike protein significantly inhibits DNA damage repair, which is required for effective V(D)J recombination in adaptive immunity. Mechanistically, we found that the spike protein localizes in the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair by impeding key DNA repair protein BRCA1 and 53BP1 recruitment to the damage site. Our findings reveal a potential molecular mechanism by which the spike protein might impede adaptive immunity and underscore the potential side effects of full-length spike-based vaccines..."

Bottom line, if this research is correct, the current vaccines may be damaging your adaptive immune system.

Full paper:

https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056/htm

Originally Posted by Paul L

This paper is not about vaccinations or vaccinated people, it is about the effect of covid-19.

This was, for the most part, my (non-expert) reading as well. And to the extent it speaks to vaccines, it seems to suggest an explanation for reduced efficacy, as opposed to potential immune system damage. Or did I miss something?

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Paul L

This paper is not about vaccinations or vaccinated people, it is about the effect of covid-19.

It's a dense, technical paper, so understandable if you missed the key points.

Basically, it is about the affect of full length spike proteins ( in covid or the vaccines ) on inhibiting DNA repair necessary for the production of B and T immune cells crucial to adaptive immunity. The resultant danger of this process is immunodeficiency.

4. Discussion

Our findings provide evidence of the spike protein hijacking the DNA damage repair machinery and adaptive immune machinery in vitro...... In contrast, our data provide valuable details on the involvement of spike protein subunits in DNA damage repair, indicating that full–length spike–based vaccines may inhibit the recombination of V(D)J in B cells, which is also consistent with a recent study that a full–length spike–based vaccine induced lower antibody titers compared to the RBD–based vaccine [28]. This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARS–CoV–2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the full–length spike. Taken together, we identified one of the potentially important mechanisms of SARS–CoV–2 suppression of the host adaptive immune machinery. Furthermore, our findings also imply a potential side effect of the full–length spike–based vaccine. This work will improve the understanding of COVID–19 pathogenesis and provide new strategies for designing more efficient and safer vaccines.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Greg K

It's a dense, technical paper, so understandable if you missed the key points.

....

No, you made up the conclusion by stating it was an issue with vaccines. The paper is no about vaccines or vaccination. Your conclusions are simply that, your conclusion, but it is not what is in the paper.

[GordMay]

COVID-19 could cause a further 300,000 deaths in Europe if all anti-infection restrictions are lifted. and contacts between individuals return to pre-pandemic levels.

A preprint study [1] of the number of people, in 19 countries, who have been neither infected, nor vaccinated, assumes that everyone in the population will become exposed — “an extreme worst-case scenario”. The study is a useful exercise in helping countries to prepare for the challenges ahead, says infectious-disease modeller Sheryl Chang. “The numbers are shocking, and they may, or may not happen, but people need to be aware that COVID-19 isn’t over.”
More about ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03455-w

Pre-Print, Not Peer Reviewed:
[1] “Unexposed populations and potential COVID-19 burden in European countries” ~ by Lloyd A C Chapman et al
➥ https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....10.21266166v1

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Paul L

No, you made up the conclusion by stating it was an issue with vaccines. The paper is no about vaccines or vaccination. Your conclusions are simply that, your conclusion, but it is not what is in the paper.

Paul, I repeat, this paper is about how (full length) spike proteins ( in covid and the vaccines ) inhibit DNA repair necessary for the production of B and T immune cells crucial to adaptive immunity.

And, yes, this most certainly has implication on the safety of current vaccines. Not my words. You need to reread the paper.

" our data provide valuable details on the involvement of spike protein subunits in DNA damage repair, indicating that full–length spike–based vaccines may inhibit the recombination of V(D)J in B cells, which is also consistent with a recent study that a full–length spike–based vaccine induced lower antibody titers compared to the RBD–based vaccine [28]. This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARS–CoV–2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the full–length spike"

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Ireland is doing pretty well -- the death rate is slightly more than 2 and stable, slightly less than the UK or Germany, despite a very high daily infection rate which is working towards 1000. Hospitalization rates are reasonable and steady, there are relatively few ICU patients.

I think this is what it looks like when the population is well vaccinated. It's not such a bad picture. I think this is what it looks like to "live with the virus". We shall, of course, see, how it progresses from here.

However, the idea of "living with the virus", which is the express policy now being followed all over Europe (and even in Australia and New Zealand), is not universally supported. I found this article to be very interesting despite its Marxist slant: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/202.../herd-o21.html. The thesis is that we can't live with the virus because Delta is too contagious, vaccines are not effective enough, and natural immunity not strong or long lasting enough. A policy of "global eradiction" is argued for, on the theory that it is only evil capitalists who want the end of restritictions, and that we should ignore them: "The principal barrier to the elimination of COVID-19 off the face of the globe is the profit-driven system of health care, and the division of the world into rival nation-states: in other words, capitalism." The same outlet published recently a bitter attack on the existing European policies: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/202.../euro-n17.html, equating them with Boris Johnson's so-called "herd immunity" strategy.


We shall see whether our current policy of "living with the virus", that is, recogizing that the virus is endemic (which Marxists call a "herd immunity strategy"), will result in acceptable hospitalization and death rates. I certainly hope so. We do need for this to be over.

What ever the logic. The view around me here in Greece is that restrictions in Europe are back on the agenda in some form or other. I know of people returning home here from Greece recently because they are now fearful of either being locked down in Greece again or denied or restricted from getting home or into their home country. Several people have left this week

In Ireland the political tone both north and south of the border is ramping up the warnings.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by GordMay

COVID-19 could cause a further 300,000 deaths in Europe if all anti-infection restrictions are lifted. and contacts between individuals return to pre-pandemic levels.

A preprint study [1] of the number of people, in 19 countries, who have been neither infected, nor vaccinated, assumes that everyone in the population will become exposed — “an extreme worst-case scenario”. The study is a useful exercise in helping countries to prepare for the challenges ahead, says infectious-disease modeller Sheryl Chang. “The numbers are shocking, and they may, or may not happen, but people need to be aware that COVID-19 isn’t over.”
More about ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03455-w

Pre-Print, Not Peer Reviewed:
[1] “Unexposed populations and potential COVID-19 burden in European countries” ~ by Lloyd A C Chapman et al
➥ https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....10.21266166v1

When dealing with the modeling of estimates based on guesses, there is only one thing one can say about such speculation, and to quote the author it is this:

“The numbers are shocking, and they may, or may not happen,... "

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Greg K

Paul, I repeat, this paper is about how (full length) spike proteins ( in covid and the vaccines ) inhibit DNA repair necessary for the production of B and T immune cells crucial to adaptive immunity.

And, yes, this most certainly has implication on the safety of current vaccines. Not my words. You need to reread the paper.

" our data provide valuable details on the involvement of spike protein subunits in DNA damage repair, indicating that full–length spike–based vaccines may inhibit the recombination of V(D)J in B cells, which is also consistent with a recent study that a full–length spike–based vaccine induced lower antibody titers compared to the RBD–based vaccine [28]. This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARS–CoV–2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the full–length spike"

OKm I'll give you the references to the vaccine. The paper implies possible negative consequences that you could get from catching Covid19, with or without symptoms, or from the mRna vaccine. Since without (and possibly with) a vaccine, the Delta virus will get almost all of us, there's not much actionable here.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Greg K

When dealing with the modeling of estimates based on guesses, there is only one thing one can say about such speculation, and to quote the author it is this:
“The numbers are shocking, and they may, or may not happen,... "

"The analysis sends a warning that even with relatively high vaccine coverage among eligible populations, countries can still experience waves of hospitalizations and deaths, says Lloyd. But the numbers are “very much the upper limit of what could occur”

It's a worst case analysis. Prevous worst case scenarios were far off the mark. HOWEVER, I think it's a serious question and worth thinking about.

It's a really interesting paper.

Look at the very high negative correlation between first dose vaccine coverage and infection fatality rate, and very significantly, the pronounced dip in the Infection Fatality Rate in Denmark as vaccinations ramped up early there:



An outlier in this correlation, however, is Sweden, which has medium immunity but the lowest Infection Fatality Rate in Europe at the moment. But I think that corresponds to the overall Nordic experience which has had much lower than average Infection Fatality Rates than the rest of Europe -- the influence, I guess, healthy population, excellent health care, etc.

And look at the very strong influence of previous infections on potential future hospitalizations:



This is why Germany, Greece, and Netherlands are still very vulnerable. Finland, is PRETTY vulnerable, as I suspected. England is very little vulnerable. I guess this is logical and obvious but we've never seen it before in numbers.

More than ever we see that everyone who is not vaccinated will get it sooner or later, and many of those who are vaccinated will also get it.

The study tries to get at the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE hospitalizations based on how many people are neither vaccinated nor previously infected, and compensating for waning immunity.

All eyes not on the UK, but on Germany, the most vulnerable large country in Europe. Vaccination rate in Germany is slightly above the EU average, but is not nearly enough to stop the pandemic, and Germany's great good luck (and good management) in avoiding the worst of the pandemic so far compared to the other large European countries is at the same time a curse.

Sweden is not in such a good position as we might imagine, because after a brutal first wave in 2020, there hasn't actually been that much infection since then. So potential hospitalizations in Sweden is about 0.1% of the population or about 10,000 people, similar to the situation in France or Spain. On the other hand, this is only a few percent, in single digits, of those hospitalized up to now, so that shows that the pandemic is still almost over in these countries even in terms of theoretically possible further hospitalizations.

The UK, with a very high level of natural immunitiy on top of a very good vaccination rate is very little vulnerable, so the UK doesn't really show the way to the rest of Europe in terms of "living with the virus". The UK can expect to succeed with "living with the virus", according to this, but Germany may have a very different experience. We can see this clearly.

Just one last twist: The paper specifically does not analyze potential longer term deaths because it doesn't account for long term waning of infections. It doesn't attempt to model future revaccinations, or lack thereof. I think there is a consensus now that we will not eradicate the virus, so it will be circulating with us for years to come. If we fail to keep immunity at a high level with revaccination, it will rip through the population again and again.

Really useful and interesting paper.

[goboatingnow]

That’s very interesting. U.K. seem to have pulled off a remarkable feat.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

That’s very interesting. U.K. seem to have pulled off a remarkable feat.

I think the UK is in a very good position at the moment.

But I think the UK paid dearly for it, having endured several really brutal waves of infection and death PLUS months of brutal restrictions.

A really good question is whether the brutal restrictions were ever worth it.

I don't know the answer to that question. With 1687 excess deaths per million, the UK has a better outcome than the mean among European countries. Could it be, that without the brutal restrictions, the UK could have ended up with 5220 excess deaths per million like Bulgaria, or 3110 like Poland, or 2246 like Italy? I don't know. Maybe.

On the other hand, Bulgaria, Poland and Italy all had brutal restrictions of their own, so you can't account for the worse outcomes in those countries, with less strict measures. And with much less strict measures, Germany has 574 deaths per million -- three times less, Sweden has 818 deaths per million -- half as many, Netherlands has 1138, not to speak of Denmark, Norway, and Finland.

Correlation doesn't prove causation so the lessons from this are not obvious. I don't know and I don't think anyone knows yet, but we need to know the answer to this in order to figure out a better pandemic response next time this happens to the world.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

snip..
I don't know and I don't think anyone knows yet, but we need to know the answer to this in order to figure out a better pandemic response next time this happens to the world.

The better pandemic response was overdue when about every western country let their citizen in from Wuhan without any quarantine measures. Not just those occasional travellers but evacuated even more contagious people living there permanently.. How stupid was that?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

The better pandemic response was overdue when about every western country let their citizen in from Wuhan without any quarantine measures. Not just those occasional travellers but evacuated even more contagious people living there permanently.. How stupid was that?

Well, I think that's right, at least in hindsight. Several different studies showed that the speed of implementation of measures was much more important than WHICH measures were implemented.


So slamming the border shut instantly would have probably been the most effective thing anyone could have done.


HOWEVER, this is all in hindsight. When did we actually know that this was going to be a disastrous pandemic? We have viruses of concern appearing all the time. Should we slam the border shut several times a year every time there is a suspected pandemic virus? I don't think we can. Which is not to say we couldn't have reacted faster; I think we could have.

[Dockhead]

Continuing this thought -- the negative correlation between strictness of measures and outcomes in Europe is striking. Some people have said -- "lock down early, lock down hard, it's simple." Implying that it's so simple and obvious that there is something evil about questioning it. But there is every good reason to question this, at least the "hard" part, judging from our experience in Europe.

This is how "lockdown" (defined as stay at home orders) correlates to outcomes in terms of excess death per million, in European countries excluding microstates and Former Soviet Union (latter excluded because of non-credible data):





Pretty striking, isn't it? Out of the best 10 European countries, only 3 had lockdown. Of the worst 10 European countries, only 2 had no lockdown (and no curfew or severe movement restrictions).

Or to put it another way: Only 2 no-lockdown countries are represented among the worst half of European countries, whereas the other 8 no-lockdown countries are in the best half, with fully 7 no-lockdown countries among the best 10.

Correlation doesn't prove causation. I doubt that we can say that lockdown CAUSES bad outcomes. Intuitively, such severe restrictions must reduce infection, at least a little. But we can certainly say that lockdown does not PREVENT bad outcomes, and we can also say that lack of lockdown, notwithstanding what some people have asserted, does not CAUSE bad outcomes.


Probably the causation runs the other way -- to some extent, countries with really frightening, bad outcomes chose the strictest measures, whereas those who were doing better didn't feel it was necessary. In the case of some countries, like the Nordic ones, lockdowns were not on the table in the first place because they are constitutionally impermissable.


A lot of science will need to be done before we fully understand this and, of course, the pandemic is still not over. Hopefully lessons learned will be applied to the next pandemic.