|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 20, 2020 18:58:30 GMT
Only for those that are looking for an excuse to ignore the rules. Most will follow them, because they know it is the right thing to do, safe in the knowledge that our rules are the same as many other European countries.
After all, does one day and one long lunch at the same table versus 5 of those days make a significant difference?Yep, have a lot of sympathy with that. Mind you, will it send a 'signal' which will be beneficial. They might well have been better reducing to 2 households, max. of x, for a period of 2-3 days for example.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 20, 2020 19:04:44 GMT
Would any of the more scientifically minded people here be able to expand upon what "antigenically distinct" might mean exactly?
Not a scientist but my very laymans understanding is that "antigenic drift" is the scientific synonym of "mutation".
It is effectively the mechanism by which the virus continues to attempt to escape human immunity.
Don't agree with the first part, IF my understanding is correct. Its a specific type of mutation as opposed to simply a synonym for any mutation. The second point is correct (except not restrictied to human hosts of course). Or in other words, its mutation to the specific parts that anti-bodies recognise and target. So if correct, it could be described as being a tad sub-optimal with regard to outcomes.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Dec 20, 2020 19:08:06 GMT
Thanks, that is interesting. I also noted from the same source: "Antigenic escape. The location of the mutations in the receptor binding domain ofthe spike glycoprotein raises the possibility that this variant is antigenically distinct from prior variants. Four probable reinfections have been identified amongst 915 subjects with this variant but further work is needed to compare this reinfection rate with comparable data sets" Would any of the more scientifically minded people here be able to expand upon what "antigenically distinct" might mean exactly? e.g. does that mean it could potentially be more or less harmful than the original? Does that also mean that if we're very unfortunate then the vaccine's efficacy might be affected? Scientific minded for sure, but not a clue in this area. However, one should be able to deduce from the words. And if it was true, it sounds like it would be potentially quite bad news. I think in effect if it is antigenically distinct, then its saying it would possibly not bind to the same antibody, or antigen receptor on T cells. You can read into that much the same as I am just doing, with a potentially sinking feeling. I also note the comment in their about four probable reinfections, not even the normally very cagey 'possible' (given how little real evidence there is of reinfection). I did indeed read up a little more. A couple of reassuring snippets: From BMJ: "The new variant has mutations to the spike protein that the three leading vaccines are targeting. However, vaccines produce antibodies against many regions in the spike protein, so it’s unlikely that a single change would make the vaccine less effective." From GISAID: "The mutations seen have rarely been affecting viral fitness and almost never affect clinical outcome but the detailed effects of these mutations remain to be determined fully." So it seems reasonable not to worry unnecessarily about it being more severe or vaccine resistant (though nothing conclusive yet of course). Still, the uplift in transmissibility is of course just by itself enough of a worry isn't it.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,920
Likes: 2,774
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 20, 2020 19:54:19 GMT
Scientific minded for sure, but not a clue in this area. However, one should be able to deduce from the words. And if it was true, it sounds like it would be potentially quite bad news. I think in effect if it is antigenically distinct, then its saying it would possibly not bind to the same antibody, or antigen receptor on T cells. You can read into that much the same as I am just doing, with a potentially sinking feeling. I also note the comment in their about four probable reinfections, not even the normally very cagey 'possible' (given how little real evidence there is of reinfection). I did indeed read up a little more. A couple of reassuring snippets: From BMJ: "The new variant has mutations to the spike protein that the three leading vaccines are targeting. However, vaccines produce antibodies against many regions in the spike protein, so it’s unlikely that a single change would make the vaccine less effective." From GISAID: "The mutations seen have rarely been affecting viral fitness and almost never affect clinical outcome but the detailed effects of these mutations remain to be determined fully." So it seems reasonable not to worry unnecessarily about it being more severe or vaccine resistant (though nothing conclusive yet of course). Still, the uplift in transmissibility is of course just by itself enough of a worry isn't it. Begs the question why do the flu virus mutants require annual changes to the vaccine ?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,920
Likes: 2,774
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 20, 2020 19:58:34 GMT
Wasn't sure whether to put this one in the "Brexit and logistics" thread.
France have blocked all UK travel including freight (except unaccompanied containers). Initial ban is 48 hours.
Put it there ! Then we can have an argument about whether Boris should retaliate by ordering all UK fish back to within 6 miles of the mainland so those dastardly foreign fishermen (oh and fisherwomen if they exist) are rendered unable to poach from our waters.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,252
Likes: 2,695
Member is Online
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Dec 20, 2020 20:42:15 GMT
I'm certain she would be flattered to hear your affectionate term of address. However, in terms of vaccinations, it does appear strange that the people least likely to spread the virus are the firsrst ones to be vccinated.
My likely flawed understanding is the vaccination doesn't stop you catching it spreading it (or it might, but if it does we don't know that yet) but it massively reduces the chance of the serious/fatal effects. I think also if you send a letter to all 20-30s you might find that they don't all rush at once to get the jab. After all, what's in it for them? Many will be keen but others will do it when they get the chance (if they can remember)! I do hate the assumption that many 20-30 year olds have no consideration for their parents or grandparents.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,641
Likes: 4,213
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 21, 2020 9:16:25 GMT
Interesting response from the markets to changing virus related news. Most EU markets are down 2% whereas the FTSE is only down 1%.
Is this evidence that they need us more than we need them? (ducks for cover)
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 21, 2020 9:41:16 GMT
Interesting response from the markets to changing virus related news. Most EU markets are down 2% whereas the FTSE is only down 1%.
Is this evidence that they need us more than we need them? (ducks for cover) Or simply that the FTSE is still priced as "dog's breakfast imminent"?
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Dec 21, 2020 10:25:08 GMT
Interesting response from the markets to changing virus related news. Most EU markets are down 2% whereas the FTSE is only down 1%.
Is this evidence that they need us more than we need them? (ducks for cover) Or simply that the FTSE is still priced as "dog's breakfast imminent"? I think currency movements are probably a better guide to what the market thinks EURUSD -1% GBPUSD -2.3% GBPEUR -1.3% i.e. not good for anyone in Europe, but worst for us.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on Dec 21, 2020 11:29:38 GMT
Or simply that the FTSE is still priced as "dog's breakfast imminent"? I think currency movements are probably a better guide to what the market thinks EURUSD -1% GBPUSD -2.3% GBPEUR -1.3% i.e. not good for anyone in Europe, but worst for us. FTSE-100 is heavily influenced by £/$ rate - so pound falling against $ protects it a bit (it's like being invested partially in dollars). Better indication is FTSE-250 - down nearly 3%.
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 648
Likes: 444
|
Post by Mike on Dec 21, 2020 13:38:07 GMT
My likely flawed understanding is the vaccination doesn't stop you catching it spreading it (or it might, but if it does we don't know that yet) but it massively reduces the chance of the serious/fatal effects. I think also if you send a letter to all 20-30s you might find that they don't all rush at once to get the jab. After all, what's in it for them? Many will be keen but others will do it when they get the chance (if they can remember)! I do hate the assumption that many 20-30 year olds have no consideration for their parents or grandparents. The very post you quote contains the basis for my statement - AFAIK the vaccine does nothing to prevent transmission to parents or grandparents. On that basis I'm not sure what consideration of OAPs will achieve
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on Dec 21, 2020 14:02:17 GMT
I do hate the assumption that many 20-30 year olds have no consideration for their parents or grandparents. The very post you quote contains the basis for my statement - AFAIK the vaccine does nothing to prevent transmission to parents or grandparents. On that basis I'm not sure what consideration of OAPs will achieve Hold on - from saying we don't know you go to stating it does nothing to prevent transmission. Much more likely is that it does something to prevent transmission - how much is still unclear and won't be until a lot more people are vaccinated. What we shouldn't do though is tell people it will reduce transmission as otherwise they may stop taking precautions prematurely and possibly counteract any benefit of the vaccine reducing transmission.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,252
Likes: 2,695
Member is Online
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Dec 21, 2020 14:25:07 GMT
I do hate the assumption that many 20-30 year olds have no consideration for their parents or grandparents. The very post you quote contains the basis for my statement - AFAIK the vaccine does nothing to prevent transmission to parents or grandparents. On that basis I'm not sure what consideration of OAPs will achieve The absolute effectiveness is still unknown, the terminology seems to be: vaccinated people 'could' still catch the virus and 'could' still transmit the virus (how likely it is I don't know). In the trials most people vaccinated didn't get the virus (97%? for this particular vaccine). Vaccination isn't a magic bullet and that is why people who have been vaccinated are advised to continue washing hands frequently and being careful of social contact, and that as many people as possible are vaccinated to reduce the spread of the virus through the population and help protect everyone. Edit: Crossed with above, got distracted for a while!
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,920
Likes: 2,774
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 21, 2020 15:44:47 GMT
I tried (and try) to stay objective when it comes to political figures. I'll listen to what they say and agree or not regardless of which tribe they are from.
Anyway, was it wise for any Health Secretary to say in public (whether true or not) its "out of control" ?
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,911
Likes: 1,612
|
Post by benaj on Dec 21, 2020 16:30:01 GMT
|
|