Planet Rugby Forum

Not good news today

Victoria has recorded 21 deaths, a new high in the state's daily death toll, and 410 new cases. The state's coronavirus count would have to drop to fewer than 20 cases a day before experts say it could be safe to start easing restrictions, but this milestone may not be too far away.

Bindi wrote:

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/a ... an-vaccine

Also worth noting plenty of people have antibodies against adenoviruses, so the vaccine may not be that effective (for this reason Oxford used a chimp adenovirus)

Wow! That's pretty damning.

Can't imagine Trump ever declaring 'victory' like that, or because of that...

eldanielfire wrote:

Bindi wrote:There's 3 extremely promising vaccine candidates in phase III trials now (Oxford, Moderna and Pfizer) and one about to start (Novovax - this one is looking particularly good). Vaccines that make it to Phase III have a very high chance of succeeding.

Suppressing the virus until a vaccine is available is absolutely the right approach. Hurd immunity is insane in comparison (lots of dead people which also leads to massive mental health impacts in friends and family, lower antibody titre, so may not provide great resistance, unknown impacts of the disease for those who do overcome it - the list goes on).

Actually you can aim for herd immunity and have a policy that excludes the elderly from that to ensure minimal dead people. And saying on just suppress until a vaccine is discovered is a double edged sword. It assumes the vaccine will work perfectly or won't have serious side effects. That ignores both the short term and long term economic impacts. Short to medium term the negatives of a damaged economy and fewer people in work or work of quality can have serious health and death implications themselves. Vaccines should be a goal, but how deaths overall are minimalised is and was very open to debate.

Then there is the long or very long term implications which possibly can't be measured. A more limited economy means less investment a more successful economy can have, anything from poorer maintenance of various public infrastructure to delays in scientific breakthroughs. It can get very vague here, as i said unmeasurable, but the true impacts can never be truely quantified.

I think there is one person on here that would violently disagree with you. He has the facts to prove you wrong.

eldanielfire wrote:Actually you can aim for herd immunity and have a policy that excludes the elderly from that to ensure minimal dead people.

Where has this been done successfully? Since you're boasting about such a policy I just thought it would be nice to know which country or jurisdiction you are talking up.

Ali's Choice wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Actually you can aim for herd immunity and have a policy that excludes the elderly from that to ensure minimal dead people.

Where has this been done successfully? Since you're boasting about such a policy I just thought it would be nice to know which country or jurisdiction you are talking up.

Yep, I'm always bemused when I see this approach suggested yet it hasn't been implemented anywhere.

I'm actually interested to her eldaniel's response as I'm sure there are some theories on how to do it out there amonst certain communities - but I haven't actually seen this filter through to the places I frequent (just rugby forums basically ).

eldanielfire wrote:Actually you can aim for herd immunity and have a policy that excludes the elderly from that to ensure minimal dead people.

Except you can't with covid. Immunity lasts 2 to 3 months. You can't achieve herd immunity in a practical sense by just letting the virus go through the population.

Sensible Stephen wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Actually you can aim for herd immunity and have a policy that excludes the elderly from that to ensure minimal dead people.

Except you can't with covid. Immunity lasts 2 to 3 months. You can't achieve herd immunity in a practical sense by just letting the virus go through the population.

Well, actually you can, because the virus strains naturally evolve to less-lethal variants.

But it’s a pretty big price to pay to get there.

shanky wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Actually you can aim for herd immunity and have a policy that excludes the elderly from that to ensure minimal dead people.

Except you can't with covid. Immunity lasts 2 to 3 months. You can't achieve herd immunity in a practical sense by just letting the virus go through the population.

Well, actually you can, because the virus strains naturally evolve to less-lethal variants.

But it’s a pretty big price to pay to get there.

From what I have read that is not true. It undergoes about two genome changes a month. There's nothing showing that it will nesscarily become less lethal each time.

Regardless, it's not herd immunity as you are still catching the virus each time. If your lucky it's a less lethal version.

I’ll defer to superior knowledge.

My understanding is that a virus that kills its host before the host can pass it on, isn’t a very successful virus - so therefore, those strains get selected out and the more moderate ones survive. As that process continues, and the host takes preventative or curative measures, then more of the innocuous variants tend to get the upper hand.

shanky wrote:I’ll defer to superior knowledge.

My understanding is that a virus that kills its host before the host can pass it on, isn’t a very successful virus - so therefore, those strains get selected out and the more moderate ones survive. As that process continues, and the host takes preventative or curative measures, then more of the innocuous variants tend to get the upper hand.

That's my understanding too, but mutations are random. No reason a localised breakout of a 10% death rate version couldn't happen.

OK

shanky wrote:OK

I might be talking shit. Just what I have read. If Bindi disagrees then I have got it wrong.

Sensible Stephen wrote:

shanky wrote:OK

I might be talking shit. Just what I have read. If Bindi disagrees then I have got it wrong.

All hail Bindi! Our beloved virologist overlord!

Ali's Choice wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Actually you can aim for herd immunity and have a policy that excludes the elderly from that to ensure minimal dead people.

Where has this been done successfully? Since you're boasting about such a policy I just thought it would be nice to know which country or jurisdiction you are talking up.

This is right up there with a request to show where there has been a successful Covid-19 vaccine program. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean the idea should be discounted or discussed.


Typical binary thinking. Either on or off. No ability to have a nuanced dialogue to explore ideas further. Simply try and shut it down.


And by the way, I don't think he is boasting.

Clogs wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Actually you can aim for herd immunity and have a policy that excludes the elderly from that to ensure minimal dead people.

Where has this been done successfully? Since you're boasting about such a policy I just thought it would be nice to know which country or jurisdiction you are talking up.

This is right up there with a request to show where there has been a successful Covid-19 vaccine program. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean the idea should be discounted or discussed.


Typical binary thinking. Either on or off. No ability to have a nuanced dialogue to explore ideas further. Simply try and shut it down.


And by the way, I don't think he is boasting.

So using this rationale why don't we chat about successfully eradicating covid-19 without having any impact on the economy? Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean the idea should be discounted or discussed. Let's chat about full eradication without having any impact on jobs or the economy.

Sensible Stephen wrote:

shanky wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Actually you can aim for herd immunity and have a policy that excludes the elderly from that to ensure minimal dead people.

Except you can't with covid. Immunity lasts 2 to 3 months. You can't achieve herd immunity in a practical sense by just letting the virus go through the population.

Well, actually you can, because the virus strains naturally evolve to less-lethal variants.

But it’s a pretty big price to pay to get there.

From what I have read that is not true. It undergoes about two genome changes a month. There's nothing showing that it will nesscarily become less lethal each time.

Regardless, it's not herd immunity as you are still catching the virus each time. If your lucky it's a less lethal version.

Entropy suggest it should become less lethal, since virulence is an undesirable trait. There are always exceptions. Myxomatosis.

Edit: I just looked up myxomatosis. It actually evolved to become *less* lethal, thus killing more rabbits.

Ali's Choice wrote:So using this rationale why don't we chat about successfully eradicating covid-19 without having any impact on the economy? Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean the idea should be discounted or discussed. Let's chat about full eradication without having any impact on jobs or the economy.

It's possible the economy will emerge stronger. Not least because businesses learn to use the network more efficiently. That could be a step change in how we do business over the coming decades.

Ali's Choice wrote:

Clogs wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Actually you can aim for herd immunity and have a policy that excludes the elderly from that to ensure minimal dead people.

Where has this been done successfully? Since you're boasting about such a policy I just thought it would be nice to know which country or jurisdiction you are talking up.

This is right up there with a request to show where there has been a successful Covid-19 vaccine program. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean the idea should be discounted or discussed.


Typical binary thinking. Either on or off. No ability to have a nuanced dialogue to explore ideas further. Simply try and shut it down.


And by the way, I don't think he is boasting.

So using this rationale why don't we chat about successfully eradicating covid-19 without having any impact on the economy? Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean the idea should be discounted or discussed. Let's chat about full eradication without having any impact on jobs or the economy.

So a simple black or white proposition then? Full eradication without any impact on jobs or the economy.

I am happy to start there if you are prepared to engage in meaningful dialogue? Just warning you that what might happen is we may end up exploring other meaningful ideas as part of our journey. Some of those ideas may have merit, some may not.

Watching the news this evening, it was sad, but not unpredictable, that the Victorian pollies are ducking and weaving in their efforts to not answer questions that might see them bearing some responsibility for the hotel cock-up.

Here's a prediction - the emergency response commissioner will be left to take one for the team, while those really responsible smugly distance themselves from him.

In other news, the Tangara school outbreak is the result of the girls being sent on an opus dei religious retreat.

Clogs wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Actually you can aim for herd immunity and have a policy that excludes the elderly from that to ensure minimal dead people.

Where has this been done successfully? Since you're boasting about such a policy I just thought it would be nice to know which country or jurisdiction you are talking up.

This is right up there with a request to show where there has been a successful Covid-19 vaccine program. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean the idea should be discounted or discussed.


Typical binary thinking. Either on or off. No ability to have a nuanced dialogue to explore ideas further. Simply try and shut it down.


And by the way, I don't think he is boasting.

You sound like a Youtube/Facebook free speech, sovereign citizen, conspiracy theory etc nut with sentences like these.

UncleFB wrote:

Clogs wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Actually you can aim for herd immunity and have a policy that excludes the elderly from that to ensure minimal dead people.

Where has this been done successfully? Since you're boasting about such a policy I just thought it would be nice to know which country or jurisdiction you are talking up.

This is right up there with a request to show where there has been a successful Covid-19 vaccine program. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean the idea should be discounted or discussed.


Typical binary thinking. Either on or off. No ability to have a nuanced dialogue to explore ideas further. Simply try and shut it down.


And by the way, I don't think he is boasting.

You sound like a Youtube/Facebook free speech, sovereign citizen, conspiracy theory etc nut with sentences like these.

Yes and you sound like a snowflake, cancel culture shrieking ultra left Marxist with a claim like that.

Fortunately we are both wise enough to know how baseless and unintelligent those labels are.

Sensible Stephen wrote:

shanky wrote:OK

I might be talking shit. Just what I have read. If Bindi disagrees then I have got it wrong.

It's a little more complicated. There's 2 kinds of mutations that happen for whatever reason - those that affect fitness and those that don't.

Even for very compact genomes like viruses have, it's easy enough to change a nucleotide here and there with no effect. This is due to how RNA is translated to protein. It takes 3 nucleotides (the RNA letters) to code for one amino acid. A chain of amino acids is a protein. There's a lot of redundancy in the 3rd RNA letter, so if it changes, you still likely get the same amino acid and therefore the same protein. When you read about how the origin of coronavirus isolates can be tracked, it's generally due to these kinds of mutations, which are happy to propagate as they aren't good or bad. This is how they could tell most of the isolates in the US had a European origin. It's probably how they'll work out where the new NZ outbreak originates from.

Mutations that affect fitness aren't evenly distributed across the genome. In coranaviruses generally (most don't infect humans), the biggest gene which helps it replicate barely changes - it already performs its job extremely well. The gene that changes the most is the spike protein. This is the one most vaccines are targeting and it's the one that allows it latch on to new cells and new organisms. Huge impact on fitness if the virus gains a new host.

As far as the coronavirus becoming less lethal, it's not necessarily the case. It spreads quite happily before symptoms show and it doesn't kill most people who get it, so being less lethal wouldn't have huge impact in a short time-frame (whereas the original SARS didn't have these advantages and died out on its own). There also has to be a functional way to get to whatever increases fitness. A mutation that makes it less lethal but less able to replicate is not helpful. Changes in the spike protein are a concern though - could stop vaccines working.

Anyway, all this stuff makes viruses interesting to study.

Cool

So please tell us about ebola. A deadly virus that seems to be contained? Reasons


Also, should I take creatine, or amino acids?

Bindi wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:

shanky wrote:OK

I might be talking shit. Just what I have read. If Bindi disagrees then I have got it wrong.

It's a little more complicated. There's 2 kinds of mutations that happen for whatever reason - those that affect fitness and those that don't.

Even for very compact genomes like viruses have, it's easy enough to change a nucleotide here and there with no effect. This is due to how RNA is translated to protein. It takes 3 nucleotides (the RNA letters) to code for one amino acid. A chain of amino acids is a protein. There's a lot of redundancy in the 3rd RNA letter, so if it changes, you still likely get the same amino acid and therefore the same protein. When you read about how the origin of coronavirus isolates can be tracked, it's generally due to these kinds of mutations, which are happy to propagate as they aren't good or bad. This is how they could tell most of the isolates in the US had a European origin. It's probably how they'll work out where the new NZ outbreak originates from.

Mutations that affect fitness aren't evenly distributed across the genome. In coranaviruses generally (most don't infect humans), the biggest gene which helps it replicate barely changes - it already performs its job extremely well. The gene that changes the most is the spike protein. This is the one most vaccines are targeting and it's the one that allows it latch on to new cells and new organisms. Huge impact on fitness if the virus gains a new host.

As far as the coronavirus becoming less lethal, it's not necessarily the case. It spreads quite happily before symptoms show and it doesn't kill most people who get it, so being less lethal wouldn't have huge impact in a short time-frame (whereas the original SARS didn't have these advantages and died out on its own). There also has to be a functional way to get to whatever increases fitness. A mutation that makes it less lethal but less able to replicate is not helpful. Changes in the spike protein are a concern though - could stop vaccines working.

Anyway, all this stuff makes viruses interesting to study.

Thanks, very interesting.

As a lay person, I was thinking if a random mutation resulted in a more deadly strain, it wouldn't matter to the virus, as 2 weeks is enough for it to do it's thing.

Also, if you get it, it does you over quite badly, then 3 months later you get the same strain again... Surely even with the same strain, your body might still be a bit buggered from the first infection, and it could end up finishing you off.

shanky wrote:Cool

So please tell us about ebola. A deadly virus that seems to be contained? Reasons


Also, should I take creatine, or amino acids?

No idea really. Guessing it's not particularly fatal to some of its hosts, so happily survives in wild animal populations.

Also, you should consume whatever gives you personal satisfaction. For me that is beer and prosciutto.

Thanks

From what I remember, something to do with ebola manifesting immediately which means people are quickly isoalted or die, which places a natural barrier to widespread transmission
Could all be bollix though, just what I read

Sensible Stephen wrote:

Bindi wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:

shanky wrote:OK

I might be talking shit. Just what I have read. If Bindi disagrees then I have got it wrong.

It's a little more complicated. There's 2 kinds of mutations that happen for whatever reason - those that affect fitness and those that don't.

Even for very compact genomes like viruses have, it's easy enough to change a nucleotide here and there with no effect. This is due to how RNA is translated to protein. It takes 3 nucleotides (the RNA letters) to code for one amino acid. A chain of amino acids is a protein. There's a lot of redundancy in the 3rd RNA letter, so if it changes, you still likely get the same amino acid and therefore the same protein. When you read about how the origin of coronavirus isolates can be tracked, it's generally due to these kinds of mutations, which are happy to propagate as they aren't good or bad. This is how they could tell most of the isolates in the US had a European origin. It's probably how they'll work out where the new NZ outbreak originates from.

Mutations that affect fitness aren't evenly distributed across the genome. In coranaviruses generally (most don't infect humans), the biggest gene which helps it replicate barely changes - it already performs its job extremely well. The gene that changes the most is the spike protein. This is the one most vaccines are targeting and it's the one that allows it latch on to new cells and new organisms. Huge impact on fitness if the virus gains a new host.

As far as the coronavirus becoming less lethal, it's not necessarily the case. It spreads quite happily before symptoms show and it doesn't kill most people who get it, so being less lethal wouldn't have huge impact in a short time-frame (whereas the original SARS didn't have these advantages and died out on its own). There also has to be a functional way to get to whatever increases fitness. A mutation that makes it less lethal but less able to replicate is not helpful. Changes in the spike protein are a concern though - could stop vaccines working.

Anyway, all this stuff makes viruses interesting to study.

Thanks, very interesting.

As a lay person, I was thinking if a random mutation resulted in a more deadly strain, it wouldn't matter to the virus, as 2 weeks is enough for it to do it's thing.

Also, if you get it, it does you over quite badly, then 3 months later you get the same strain again... Surely even with the same strain, your body might still be a bit buggered from the first infection, and it could end up finishing you off.

The first time you get it, you have no antibodies against it. Once you've had it, you do, so would likely fight it off if you're not too f**ked. How long the window of protection lasts is unknown at the moment.

Bindi wrote:
The first time you get it, you have no antibodies against it. Once you've had it, you do, so would likely fight it off if you're not too f**ked. How long the window of protection lasts is unknown at the moment.

Yep, but isn't there quite a lot of data stacking up now saying after a few months most antibodies have faded away? Well that's what the news.com.au headlines lead me to believe anyway.

Ali's Choice wrote:

Clogs wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Actually you can aim for herd immunity and have a policy that excludes the elderly from that to ensure minimal dead people.

Where has this been done successfully? Since you're boasting about such a policy I just thought it would be nice to know which country or jurisdiction you are talking up.

This is right up there with a request to show where there has been a successful Covid-19 vaccine program. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean the idea should be discounted or discussed.


Typical binary thinking. Either on or off. No ability to have a nuanced dialogue to explore ideas further. Simply try and shut it down.


And by the way, I don't think he is boasting.

So using this rationale why don't we chat about successfully eradicating covid-19 without having any impact on the economy? Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean the idea should be discounted or discussed. Let's chat about full eradication without having any impact on jobs or the economy.

Ali, what should we do if the vaccine doesn't work? Eventually a hard chat will have to happen.

Full eradication based on interventions is more of a pipedream than shielding at risk people.

Ali's Choice wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Actually you can aim for herd immunity and have a policy that excludes the elderly from that to ensure minimal dead people.

Where has this been done successfully? Since you're boasting about such a policy I just thought it would be nice to know which country or jurisdiction you are talking up.

I'm not boasting about the policy nor advocating for it. However had most countries made the mistakes with not protecting or screening care homes of COVID-19 then most death rates would be considerably less regardless of what method they pursued.

shanky wrote:I’ll defer to superior knowledge.

My understanding is that a virus that kills its host before the host can pass it on, isn’t a very successful virus - so therefore, those strains get selected out and the more moderate ones survive. As that process continues, and the host takes preventative or curative measures, then more of the innocuous variants tend to get the upper hand.

This is all logical, but how many air borne viruses do we deal with kill hosts so quickly they won't pass it on in countries where much of the populations are urban and interact? The virus would almost certainly not evolve to close to that state given the environmental selection pressures we have. It's likely to stay in a "might kill fair slowly" bunch of variants as much as it might move to a non-lethal state.

UncleFB wrote:

Clogs wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Actually you can aim for herd immunity and have a policy that excludes the elderly from that to ensure minimal dead people.

Where has this been done successfully? Since you're boasting about such a policy I just thought it would be nice to know which country or jurisdiction you are talking up.

This is right up there with a request to show where there has been a successful Covid-19 vaccine program. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean the idea should be discounted or discussed.


Typical binary thinking. Either on or off. No ability to have a nuanced dialogue to explore ideas further. Simply try and shut it down.


And by the way, I don't think he is boasting.

You sound like a Youtube/Facebook free speech, sovereign citizen, conspiracy theory etc nut with sentences like these.

For someone who claims never to watch or read these people, you bring them up a lot

Sensible Stephen wrote:

Bindi wrote:
The first time you get it, you have no antibodies against it. Once you've had it, you do, so would likely fight it off if you're not too f**ked. How long the window of protection lasts is unknown at the moment.

Yep, but isn't there quite a lot of data stacking up now saying after a few months most antibodies have faded away? Well that's what the news.com.au headlines lead me to believe anyway.

If that’s the case, that herd immunity isn’t possible, than what is the point of vaccination?

towny wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:

Bindi wrote:
The first time you get it, you have no antibodies against it. Once you've had it, you do, so would likely fight it off if you're not too f**ked. How long the window of protection lasts is unknown at the moment.

Yep, but isn't there quite a lot of data stacking up now saying after a few months most antibodies have faded away? Well that's what the news.com.au headlines lead me to believe anyway.

If that’s the case, that herd immunity isn’t possible, than what is the point of vaccination?

Herd immunity is achieved by vaccinating enough people to prevent by the spread of a virus. As with the flu it may be that we will need to be vaccinated yearly to achieve that. However as with the flu people probably will not bother and only the most vulnerable will get vaccinated.

Norman Harvey wrote:

towny wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:

Bindi wrote:
The first time you get it, you have no antibodies against it. Once you've had it, you do, so would likely fight it off if you're not too f**ked. How long the window of protection lasts is unknown at the moment.

Yep, but isn't there quite a lot of data stacking up now saying after a few months most antibodies have faded away? Well that's what the news.com.au headlines lead me to believe anyway.

If that’s the case, that herd immunity isn’t possible, than what is the point of vaccination?

Herd immunity is achieved by vaccinating enough people to prevent by the spread of a virus. As with the flu it may be that we will need to be vaccinated yearly to achieve that. However as with the flu people probably will not bother and only the most vulnerable will get vaccinated.

Doubt it. Not until they know why it fvcks up some people and not others and can test for it.

towny wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:

Bindi wrote:
The first time you get it, you have no antibodies against it. Once you've had it, you do, so would likely fight it off if you're not too f**ked. How long the window of protection lasts is unknown at the moment.

Yep, but isn't there quite a lot of data stacking up now saying after a few months most antibodies have faded away? Well that's what the news.com.au headlines lead me to believe anyway.

If that’s the case, that herd immunity isn’t possible, than what is the point of vaccination?

Vaccination gives a stronger antibody response (in the better ones so far) than getting the disease + antibodies are only part of the story. There’s also T-cells. No one knows how long immunity lasts for yet, but signs are good.

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S009 ... 20)31008-4

https://assets.researchsquare.com/files ... tamped.pdf

Maybe avoid news.com.au headlines.

Flockwitt wrote:

Norman Harvey wrote:

towny wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:

Bindi wrote:
The first time you get it, you have no antibodies against it. Once you've had it, you do, so would likely fight it off if you're not too f**ked. How long the window of protection lasts is unknown at the moment.

Yep, but isn't there quite a lot of data stacking up now saying after a few months most antibodies have faded away? Well that's what the news.com.au headlines lead me to believe anyway.

If that’s the case, that herd immunity isn’t possible, than what is the point of vaccination?

Herd immunity is achieved by vaccinating enough people to prevent by the spread of a virus. As with the flu it may be that we will need to be vaccinated yearly to achieve that. However as with the flu people probably will not bother and only the most vulnerable will get vaccinated.

Doubt it. Not until they know why it fvcks up some people and not others and can test for it.

Very few people get serious symptoms and we can already see the young are in the main not at all worried about catching this virus. Give it a few years without the daily updates of Covid-19 deaths (we don't get them for flu) and complacency will set in.

Where is Muttonbong?

grievous wrote:Where is Muttonbong?

Busy lad, meetings with those overseas investors looking to dump trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of (real) dollars into the economy now that NZ has shown the world how to eradicate Coronavirus.. Fcuk me that clown is bizarre, I mean surely he's aware that the Chinese picked the carcass down to the bones years ago, exactly who would invest what, where? Even the fish have been sold decades down the road...

And it turns out Melbourne’s patient zero was not a security guard, but a night duty manager at Rydges...

303 new cases today, and only 4 deaths.