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

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

If both the unvaccinated and vaccinated are eventually going to become infected possibly multiple times in their lifetime, gaining extra immunity to severe disease in the process that is likely to be stronger immunity than through vaccination alone, and if the unvaccinated more readily become infected initially, which is likely to happen very quickly with highly transmissible variants, are not the unvaccinated speeding up the process of ending the critical stage of the pandemic, not prolonging it?

This certainly seems to have occurred to some degree in the UK. The total % of the population vaccinated is essentially no higher than the EU and lower than many other European countries eg Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, Ireland, Denmark, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, as well as Canada, Australia & NZ. England has been functioning with almost no government restrictions in place since mid July (mask wearing has just been reintroduced in response to the Omicron variant) and deaths have cycled slightly, but been almost unchanged since then.. . .

Reminds me a bit of Giesecker's arguments at the beginning of the pandemic. If we will all get it sooner or later, then why delay the inevitable?

The UK has bought its total immunity by having had a lot of infection on top of a decent but not extraordinary vaccination rate. Total death, though, is slightly better than the EU average -- so not all that horrible. Most of the UK infections took place before widespread vaccination -- so maybe with widespread vaccination less affected countries can just let it go?

But they can't -- at least not without NPI's. Don't forget that during those bad waves of infection in the UK, very strict measures were implemented, and even with those, there was a lot of death.

Vaccinating the vulnerable pretty well has not resulted in an acceptable death rate in Germany, for example.

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

It is the unvaccinated vulnerable who are causing the problems of overcrowded hospitals and increased deaths. Why not focus on getting this group vaccinated?

Presenting some clear data on just how deadly the virus is for people in certain age groups and with certain co-morbidities compared to how extremely low the risk is for others should get the vulnerable racing to get vaccinated. We seem to be treating everyone in the same manner almost to avoid discrimination (or is it to strike fear in everyone?). . ..

I think this is reasonable in general. But is it really right to ignore those with less risk -- healthy younger people? First of all, is the risk really "extremely low"? I read somewhere that covid is now the leading cause of death of teenagers somewhere. Second -- don't we also care about the dynamics of the pandemic? We vaccinate not just to protect the vaccinated person, but also to close down vectors of transmission.

[GordMay]

Moderna's chief medical officer, Dr. Paul Burton, said in an interview on BBC's Andrew Marr Show [1], that if a new vaccine is necessary, "I think that’s going to be early 2022 before that’s really going to available in large quantities."

"The remarkable thing about the mRNA vaccines, Moderna platform is we can move very fast," he said, noting that the company started work on an Omicron vaccine on Thursday, during the U.S.'s Thanksgiving holiday.

Burton said Moderna should know whether the current COVID-19 vaccine can provide protection against Omicron in the "next couple weeks," but said it is his suspicion that Omicron may escape that protection given the 30 mutations of the variant -- nine of which are known to be "associated with immune escape."

"You bring those together I think this is a very concerning virus."

[1] Transcript ➥ http://downloads.bbci.co.uk/andrewmarrshow/28112103.pdf

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Moderna's chief medical officer, Dr. Paul Burton, said in an interview on BBC's Andrew Marr Show [1], that if a new vaccine is necessary, "I think that’s going to be early 2022 before that’s really going to available in large quantities."

"The remarkable thing about the mRNA vaccines, Moderna platform is we can move very fast," he said, noting that the company started work on an Omicron vaccine on Thursday, during the U.S.'s Thanksgiving holiday.

Burton said Moderna should know whether the current COVID-19 vaccine can provide protection against Omicron in the "next couple weeks," but said it is his suspicion that Omicron may escape that protection given the 30 mutations of the variant -- nine of which are known to be "associated with immune escape."

"You bring those together I think this is a very concerning virus."

[1] Transcript ➥ http://downloads.bbci.co.uk/andrewmarrshow/28112103.pdf

The world will be holding its collective breath.


I don't dare hope too much that Omicron causes only very mild cases, but it sure would be nice.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Reminds me a bit of Giesecker's arguments at the beginning of the pandemic. If we will all get it sooner or later, then why delay the inevitable?

The UK has bought its total immunity by having had a lot of infection on top of a decent but not extraordinary vaccination rate. Total death, though, is slightly better than the EU average -- so not all that horrible. Most of the UK infections took place before widespread vaccination -- so maybe with widespread vaccination less affected countries can just let it go?

But they can't -- at least not without NPI's. Don't forget that during those bad waves of infection in the UK, very strict measures were implemented, and even with those, there was a lot of death.

Giesecker's opinions that were expressed very early in the pandemic have turned out to be prophetic. How we best handle this is influenced dramatically by how well the vulnerable can be protected from severe disease. Currently with vaccination this is extremely well. The ability to “let it go” depends very much on this. Do we restrict the lives of the rest of the population simply because some of the vulnerable refuse to be vaccinated? A minority are unable to be vaccinated for health reasons, but in those cases they unfortunately need to take on all NPIs possible.

The need for NPIs is very much individual based, not widespread. For example, even if those that fall into high risk categories (over aged 70+ or younger people who have health issues or are obese) are vaccinated, it is still advisable for them to completely avoid crowded public indoor spaces, particularly if not well ventilated. Mask wearing probably helps so should be continued in certain circumstances even when when not mandated. The vaccinated spread infection as well (albeit at a lower rate, as you have pointed out) and are still a risk to them. NPIs cannot simply be dropped for this group without increasing risk of death, even if 100% vaccination is reached.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Vaccinating the vulnerable pretty well has not resulted in an acceptable death rate in Germany, for example.

“Pretty well” is clearly not good enough. It is the lack of a higher rate in this group that is causing the bulk of the problems.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think this is reasonable in general. But is it really right to ignore those with less risk -- healthy younger people? First of all, is the risk really "extremely low"? I read somewhere that covid is now the leading cause of death of teenagers somewhere. Second -- don't we also care about the dynamics of the pandemic? We vaccinate not just to protect the vaccinated person, but also to close down vectors of transmission.

“Read somewhere” is also not good enough . Chase the data. Also the same data can be presented very differently to skew perception. eg Stating a higher increase of severe illness in the unvaccinated young compared to the old may be correct, but if the number is extremely low to start with the increase is near irrelevant. There is little difference between one per million and twenty (a 20 fold increase), but a huge difference between 200,000 and 400,000 per million (only a 2 fold increase).

There is nothing to indicate the vectors of transmission will be closed even with 100% vaccination. The vaccinated are still getting infected (some symptom free) at a rate that is too high to stop this.

SWL

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Giesecker's opinions that were expressed very early in the pandemic have turned out to be prophetic. How we best handle this is influenced dramatically by how well the vulnerable can be protected from severe disease. Currently with vaccination this is extremely well. The ability to “let it go” depends very much on this. Do we restrict the lives of the rest of the population simply because some of the vulnerable refuse to be vaccinated? A minority are unable to be vaccinated for health reasons, but in those cases they unfortunately need to take on all NPIs possible.

The need for NPIs is very much individual based, not widespread. For example, even if those that fall into high risk categories (over aged 70+) are vaccinated, it is still advisable for them to completely avoid crowded public indoor spaces, particularly if not well ventilated. Mask wearing probably helps so should be continued in certain circumstances even when when not mandated. The vaccinated spread infection as well (albeit at a lower rate, as you have pointed out) and are still a risk to them. NPIs cannot simply be dropped for this group without increasing risk of death, even if 100% vaccination is reached.




“Pretty well” is clearly not good enough. It is the lack of a higher rate in this group that is causing the bulk of the problems.




“Read somewhere” is also not good enough . Chase the data. Also the same data can be presented very differently to skew perception. eg Stating a higher increase of severe illness in the unvaccinated young compared to the old may be correct, but if the number is extremely low to start with the increase is near irrelevant. There is little difference between one per million and twenty (a 20 fold increase), but a huge difference between 200,000 and 400,000 per million (only a 2 fold increase).

There is nothing to indicate the vectors of transmission will be closed even with 100% vaccination. The vaccinated are still getting infected (some symptom free) at a rate that is too high to stop this.

SWL

Your view of the vulnerable is very limited IMHO as it looks like you speek only about the most vulnerable. Everybody is vulnerable some more and some less. There's also different kind of vulnerabilities, the first is for the disease and the other is the danger of overwhelmed hospitals you seem forget..

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

There is nothing to indicate the vectors of transmission will be closed even with 100% vaccination. The vaccinated are still getting infected (some symptom free) at a rate that is too high to stop this.

SWL

A+1... Let us get back to living..

People... $h1t Happens and comes in all shapes and sizes, it's just pure luck if it does not land on you...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Giesecker's opinions that were expressed very early in the pandemic have turned out to be prophetic. . .

I agree.

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

. . . How we best handle this is influenced dramatically by how well the vulnerable can be protected from severe disease. Currently with vaccination this is extremely well. The ability to “let it go” depends very much on this. Do we restrict the lives of the rest of the population simply because some of the vulnerable refuse to do so? . . .

What I have underlined is something we hear in a chorus, all around Europe, and more and more. In some of our discussions on here, some people seem to have difficulty grasping the cost and damage which comes with the stricter, generally applicable NPI's, but the general population, in Europe at least, has no difficulty grasping this, and there is no appetite for them. Politicians are under tremendous pressure from vaccinated voters with small children and/or with precarious employment situations who are going to explode if they are asked to suffer still more damage for the sake of the unvaccinated. I think further strict, generally applicable strict NPI's are politically unfeasible in most European countries.

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

. . . A minority are unable to be vaccinated for health reasons, but in those cases they unfortunately need to take on all NPIs possible.

The need for NPIs is very much individual based, not widespread. For example, even if those that fall into high risk categories (over aged 70+) are vaccinated, it is still advisable for them to completely avoid crowded public indoor spaces, particularly if not well ventilated. Mask wearing probably helps so should be continued in certain circumstances even when when not mandated. The vaccinated spread infection as well (albeit at a lower rate, as you have pointed out) and are still a risk to them. NPIs cannot simply be dropped for this group without increasing risk of death, even if 100% vaccination is reached.

I have been talking about generally applicable NPI's. NPI's specifically applicable to either the vulnerable, or the unvaccinated, is something different. I'm concerned that going after the unvaccinated too hard will cause a backlash, but some countries are gearing up to even "lock down" (that is, issue stay at home orders) the unvaccinated whilst allowing the vaccinated to live normal lives. Here in Latvia, where I am today, the unvaccinated are not allowed into restaurants, bars, theatres, cinemas, public events, or even shops aside from a few grocery-only shops and pharmacies. The unvaccinated here are furious about "vaccine apartheid" but the rest of the people seem pretty happy with this. Is this politically feasible in other parts of Europe? I don't know.

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

. . .“Pretty well” is clearly not good enough. It is the lack of a higher rate in this group that is causing the bulk of the problems.

“Read somewhere” is also not good enough . Chase the data.

Sure (sheepish grin).

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

. . .Also the same data can be presented very differently to skew perception. eg Stating a higher increase of severe illness in the unvaccinated young compared to the old may be correct, but if the number is extremely low to start with the increase is near irrelevant. There is little difference between one per million and twenty (a 20 fold increase), but a huge difference between 200,000 and 400,000 per million (only a 2 fold increase).

OK.

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

. . . There is nothing to indicate the vectors of transmission will be closed even with 100% vaccination. The vaccinated are still getting infected (some symptom free) at a rate that is too high to stop this.. .

Yes, but -- who was it who said "herd immunity is not all or nothing"? Ah, right, it was Neil Fergusen, last week.

Total herd immunity all vectors of transmission are closed and where the pandemic just stops completely is out of our reach, according to what is, as far as I can see, a consensus view of the scientists. But herd immunity effects dampening the spread of the virus kick in far earlier than that. I think we want that.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Giesecker's opinions that were expressed very early in the pandemic have turned out to be prophetic...

I presume that you, both, are referring to “The invisible pandemic” ~ by Johan Giesecke [Published: May 05, 2020]
➥ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...035-7/fulltext

See also a rebuttal:
“COVID-19—a very visible pandemic” ~ by Andrew Ewing [2020 Aug 6]
➥ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7832460/

“Swedish expert backtracks on herd immunity for Ireland” ~ The Irish Times [Nov 29, 2021]
“Sweden’s former chief epidemiologist Dr Johan Giesecke has admitted that Sweden’s herd immunity approach to controlling the Covid-19 pandemic might not work in Ireland after earlier advocating for a “controlled spread” of the virus...”
➥ https://www.irishtimes.com/news/heal...land-1.4362844

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Your view of the vulnerable is very limited IMHO as it looks like you speek only about the most vulnerable. Everybody is vulnerable some more and some less. There's also different kind of vulnerabilities, the first is for the disease and the other is the danger of overwhelmed hospitals you seem forget..

We are all vulnerable to a host of infections, injuries, illnesses etc during our lives, many of which we can mitigate by taking on personal responsibility by striving to maintain peak health and by reducing risk exposure. It is left up to us what measures we take and the same should apply to COVID-19 now that the best measure (vaccination) has now been readily available to all adults in first world countries for some months now.

I have certainly not forgotten the danger of overwhelmed hospitals. I made this comment earlier:

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

…It is the unvaccinated vulnerable who are causing the problems of overcrowded hospitals and increased deaths. Why not focus on getting this group vaccinated? ….

Overwhelmed hospitals is what we have been trying to avoid since the start of the pandemic. This was the whole premise to “flattening the curve”, an expression I have not heard much lately.

To avoid this we should be striving to get the responsible group vaccinated (even 90% is not sufficient given the high numbers in this group), not focussing on mandating vaccination and restrictions for those who risk is very low. I think if the data was clearly presented and widely publicised it would help tremendously. I think people would say they know the elderly and ill are at higher risk, but I doubt many realise how dramatically so, and particularly how low the risk is for healthy children and young adults.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

. . . To avoid this we should be striving to get the responsible group vaccinated (even 90% is not sufficient given the high numbers in this group), not focussing on mandating vaccination and restrictions for those who risk is very low. I think if the data was clearly presented and widely publicised it would help tremendously. I think people would say they know the elderly and ill are at higher risk, but I doubt many realise how dramatically so, and particularly how low the risk is for healthy children and young adults.

What is particularly admirable about your proposal here is that it can be tested with data and modelling. My feeling is that few countries are far enough along with total immunity to make this work, but that's just a feeling -- this can be tested.



Prevous modelling of the effect of different levels of vaccination fell down due to misunderstanding of the contagiousness of Delta and the extent of breakthrough infections. Maybe we now know enough to do a proper model and draw some conclusions.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I presume that you, both, are referring to “The invisible pandemic” ~ by Johan Giesecke [Published: May 05, 2020]
➥ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...035-7/fulltext

See also a rebuttal:
“COVID-19—a very visible pandemic” ~ by Andrew Ewing [2020 Aug 6]
➥ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7832460/

“Swedish expert backtracks on herd immunity for Ireland” ~ The Irish Times [Nov 29, 2021]
“Sweden’s former chief epidemiologist Dr Johan Giesecke has admitted that Sweden’s herd immunity approach to controlling the Covid-19 pandemic might not work in Ireland after earlier advocating for a “controlled spread” of the virus...”
➥ https://www.irishtimes.com/news/heal...land-1.4362844

I was not referring to Giesecke’s views on how best to manage the pandemic.

I was referring to this comment of his in the first link you gave:

“Everyone will be exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and most people will become infected.”

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

What is particularly admirable about your proposal here is that it can be tested with data and modelling. My feeling is that few countries are far enough along with total immunity to make this work, but that's just a feeling -- this can be tested.

Maybe not, as in some countries such as Ireland (according to Goboatingnow) critical care facilities are scant, but is not so much total immunity that is vital in order to minimise severe disease, it is the proportion of the vulnerable vaccinated.

I don’t see any ramping up of efforts to get the groups most responsible for hospital admissions fully vaccinated. These groups are not being targeted any longer. Introducing widespread restrictions (or even mandates) for everyone unvaccinated regardless of risk can simply backfire.

Rather than modelling (and predictive modelling has been particularly bad at times during this pandemic), just examine the data for hospital entries closely, looking specifically at the demographics (age, health, sex, racial differences etc). There have been some changes as the pandemic has progressed and new variants have emerged, but basically the groups responsible for most admissions are well defined and we have been aware of these almost since the pandemic started in Europe. Target these groups for vaccination and hospital admissions will drop. Vaccination has shown to provide excellent protection from severe disease for the variants we have had to date.

At this stage there is no reason to panic about the effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing severe illness for the Omicron variant. Although there has been a four fold increase in the mutations in the spike protein, I understand all the mutations have been seen before, just not all together.

[Zippee]

Originally Posted by Exile

In my admittedly layman's mind anyway, the principal reason for a friendly push back on this lies in (seemingly) increasing evidence that the vaccines are far less effective at preventing new infections than originally thought. This can only become more of a factor as variants become predictably more contagious but less lethal (for most people), which is presumably why Campbell in the vid above -- along with other health professionals -- are already opining that "everyone" is ultimately likely to get the Omicron variant (as it displaces Delta). If I'm understanding this correctly, this explains why epidemics & pandemics eventually morph into endemics, which is exactly what Fauci pointed out on one of the Sunday news shows this morning:

"'We certainly are not going to eradicate it,' Fauci said on Meet the Press. 'What I do think we'll be able to do is get a level of control that's low enough that doesn't interfere with our function. It doesn't have a major impact on society and what we do, but it's not going to go away,' he added.'"

This suggests to me that, rather than the unvaccinated being responsible for additional vectors of infection that will keep the virus going, all of us are potential vectors capable and likely to be infected, whether vaccinated or not (and presumably whether someone has natural immunity or not). In fact, it has been reported (and as SWL already pointed out) that the first case of Omicron was believed to be an immuno-compromised patient (who I don't recall was vaccinated or not). IOW, someone more susceptible to catching any sort of virus regardless. IF this analysis and the assumptions upon which it relies are correct, then the next best argument in favor of mandatory vaxes would seem to be the potential disproportionate overwhelming of ICUs and other health care resources by the unvaccinated, but this is often a moving target and often region-dependent. As we've already discussed above, there have been a large number of ICU beds in the UK occupied by vaccinated patients as well, with the principal cause of illness attributed to individual vulnerabilities as opposed to (necessarily) vax status.

Regardless of whether or not this is correct and may be ultimately proven as time goes on, however, what we DO know is that vaxes (and natural immunity likely) dramatically reduce serious illness, hospitalization, and death, and for this reason alone any risks associated with vaccines are IMO quite convincingly outweighed by the benefits. For most people that is. So for these reasons I remain decidedly pro-vaccine for myself and most others, but thus far I either don't agree or don't understand how the unvaccinated pose a threat that warrants either compulsory vaxes or other restrictions designed to isolate them from society.

This position is quite corporate, modestly political and inconsistent. I really don't have the inclination to engage in argumentative polemics with anyone whose mind is made up, especially when delivered with what I consider undeserved confidence and alleged expertise.


Fauci's quote is parsed, as he also stated that all options - including shutdown - is on the table. Other countries agree. Hint: Covid has already become "endemic", and Omicron is the first mega-variant that may upset the whole applecart. Any confidence in the "possible" origin is purely speculative and unproven, completely premature and self-serving. It's one thing to perform due diligence to determine the facts - it's quite another to seek justification for one's own predetermined opinions.

Sorry, we will have to completely disagree. I'll stick with the unedited Campbell and his extremely qualified sources and citations. Now if I have a question about sailing...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Zippee

This position is quite corporate, modestly political and inconsistent. I really don't have the inclination to engage in argumentative polemics with anyone whose mind is made up, especially when delivered with what I consider undeserved confidence and alleged expertise.

Fauci's quote is parsed, as he also stated that all options - including shutdown - is on the table. Other countries agree. Hint: Covid has already become "endemic", and Omicron is the first mega-variant that may upset the whole applecart. Any confidence in the "possible" origin is purely speculative and unproven, completely premature and self-serving. It's one thing to perform due diligence to determine the facts - it's quite another to seek justification for one's own predetermined opinions.

Sorry, we will have to completely disagree. I'll stick with the unedited Campbell and his extremely qualified sources and citations. Now if I have a question about sailing...

I disagree with Exile on several things, but his opinions are extremely thoughtful and well-informed, and this is a good discussion, which several of us are enjoying and learning from. There are no "argumentative polemics" in anything Exile has posted in here. If you discount and dismiss the views of anyone who does not have specific expertise on the pandemic, then why in heaven's name are you participating in a pandemic thread on a sailing forum? Surely you can find a more worthy, in your view, group to discuss this with?

[laird]

Looks like those traveling overseas need to check with their airline , my buddy has just been turned back at qatar airlines desk at Heathrow despite having all of the requirements for entry .