Holiday going ahead but country now wont allow unvaccinated - am I eligible for a refund/free change

jimi_man

GingerTim said:

y3sitsm3 said:

Phantom151 said:

y3sitsm3 said:

To paraphrase you "stop spreading misleading information"

It wasn't the mutating point that was misleading. It was the immunity and cure part. Mutations can go either way but it is possible to catch covid over and over again. We have to hope that it carries on mutating into less deadly strains but it is not guaranteed.

Saying they can "go either way" suggests that it's a 50/50 chance. It isn't.  It essentially never is.

It's a remote possibility vs what essentially always happens, it mutates and becomes less deadly.  As "Omicron" has and as everyone who wasn't a bedwetter or the media expected.

How would a virus survive if it is as transmissible but more deadly?

You are ascribing sentience to a virus which really doesn't care if it harms or kills the people it infects. Plus, as the scientists in the article below point out, it's not correct to say that Omicron straightforwardly evolved from Delta or Alpha and is a 'milder' form of that.

Nothing to do with being a 'bedwetter', it's just that viral evolution is a lot more complex than just thinking, however comforting, that they always get less dangerous. I wish polio and Ebola would.

(You asked in an earlier message when was the last time a virus evolved into something deadlier - the obvious answer is Covid. Alpha and Delta were and are more dangerous than the OG strain.)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/11/will-covid-19-become-less-dangerous-as-it-evolves?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

"Those stating that viruses become less deadly over time often cite influenza. Both of the flu viruses responsible for the 1918 Spanish flu and 2009 swine flu pandemics eventually evolved to become less dangerous. However, the 1918 virus is thought to have become more deadly before it became milder. And other viruses, such as Ebola, have become more dangerous over time.

“It’s a fallacy that viruses or pathogens become milder. If a virus can continue to be transmitted and cause lots of disease, it will,” said Prof David Robertson, head of viral genomics and bioinformatics at the University of Glasgow’s Centre for Virus Research.

Viruses aim to create as many copies of themselves and spread as widely as possible. Although it is not always in their best interests to kill their hosts, so long as they are transmitted before this happens, it doesn’t matter. Sars-CoV-2 doesn’t kill people during the period when it is most infectious; people tend to die two to three weeks after becoming ill. Provided it does not evolve to make people so ill that they do not, or cannot, mix with other people while they are infectious, the virus doesn’t care if there are some casualties along the way.

Neither is it clear that Sars-CoV-2 is becoming progressively milder. Omicron appears to be less severe than the Alpha or Delta variants – but both of these variants caused more severe illness than the original Wuhan strain. Importantly, viral evolution is not a one-way street: Omicron did not evolve from Delta, and Delta didn’t evolve from Alpha – it is more random and unpredictable than that.

“These [variants of concern] are not going one from the other, and so if that pattern continues, and another variant pops out in six months, it could be worse,” said Robertson. “It’s important not to assume that there’s some inevitability for Omicron to be the end of Sars-CoV-2’s evolution.”

There is a possibility that Omicron is so transmissible that it has hit a ceiling whereby future variants will struggle to outcompete it. But just a few months ago, people were saying the same thing about Delta. Also, Omicron is likely to keep evolving. “What might play out is that as Omicron infects so many people, it’s harder for that first Omicron [variant] to continue to be as successful, and so that creates a space for a virus that’s better at evading the immune response,” Robertson said."

It's unfortunate that this is a newspaper article containing quotes to prove the piece, rather than a peer reviewed scientific paper. The phrase It’s a fallacy that viruses or pathogens become milder has been taken massively out of context, since it's quite clear that they can get milder and it does happen. It also happens that they get more virulent with examples given. The way it reads is that they never become milder which is of course far from the truth and I'm sure Prof Robertson would have added a rider on the end of that. Sloppy journalism, but then it is the Guardian.

In our favour is of course immunity, both vaccine generated and antibodies from previous infections. The estimates are that getting on for 50% of the population have had Covid in some form, and that's going up substantially with Omicron. Coupled with vaccinations gives (the UK at least) a high percentage of community immunity. Viral research seems to suggest that they evolve over time to 'beat' existing immunity, so the antibodies are less effective at dealing with it. However the flip side of that is with the infection being less serious then more people can build up antibodies in the first place - which will at least provide some help in the future when combatting variants, as opposed to Alpha and Delta etc that no-one really wanted to get.

It seems now that with the Covid hospitalisation figures, that over 50% of those in the SE are with some other illness and have tested positive either at the time or subsequently, which is encouraging.  

GingerTim

Ha, yes - there really should be an 'automatically' before 'becomes milder' in Prof Robertson's quotation!

lisyloo

MiserlyMartin said:

 Valance has resigned now, I wonder why..

JVT (van tam) has stepped down after an already extended secondment came to an end.
you have the wrong person I think.
also I don’t think this is a resignation although I’ve seen it reported as such.
be careful who you get your info from as some mainstream headlines reported this as a resignation which looks incorrect to me.

Nebulous2

MiserlyMartin said:

jimi_man said:

Point 6 is an interesting one. At the moment China and probably NZ are the two that fit into that category. However they are going to come hugely unstuck at some point, simply because of their total lack of community immunity. Whilst the rest of the world has built up levels of immunity towards C19, they have none, which pretty much condemns them to continuing their restrictions forever more. It will be interesting to see how they deal with that.

I totally agree with this. By locking down and hard too, they are actually prolonging the pandemic within their country. They are killing their people through lockdown too, as their health systems concentrate on covid and not other more common illnesses - heart disease, strokes, cancer and of course the mental health damage of lockdowns and social isolation

This is a remarkably inaccurate post, with regards to New Zealand in particular. They hit it very hard for a fairly short period of time, closed their borders and got on with their lives in a way we could only dream of. My son was at Rugby matches, drinking beer with thousands of people when we were still quite rigidly locked down. 

The impact on their health service has been very limited as well. Look at the deaths in that chart. Where we have had over 150,000 they have had 52. Their health service has largely got on with business as usual. 

Finding a way out and reopening their borders is going to be tricky, but they now have one of the best vaccinated populations in the world, which will certainly help. 

michael1234

Ibrahim5 said:

There is a whole science developing around whether it is worth discussing COVID with anti vaxxers. The consensus appears to be that it is pointless. If you try to make them see sense then you are seen as part of the mainstream and so shouldn't be believed. These discussions just go round in circles.

Firstly cards on the table. I'm double vaxed and plan to have my booster at long last when I get back to the UK soon.

That said, I resent the term "anti-vaxers". Yes there are probably some loony, diehard flat-earth types who will never have it but I think debate should never be shut down. In particular should healthy young children have it and if so we should come clean that the main reason for asking them to have it is down to protecting older or people with existing conditions - it is nothing to do with protecting children. The odds of them coming to serious harm from covid are vanishingly small.

At the same time we have the BBC and others attributing the less dangerous (to an individual) nature of omicron to the vaccine. In fact that is likely part of the reason but it has also been shown to be intrinsically less pathogenic.

This "come on get your jab" propaganda (definition: news which is designed to influence behaviour) is IMO counter-productive as many like me will see right through it.

jimi_man

Nebulous2 said:

MiserlyMartin said:

jimi_man said:

Point 6 is an interesting one. At the moment China and probably NZ are the two that fit into that category. However they are going to come hugely unstuck at some point, simply because of their total lack of community immunity. Whilst the rest of the world has built up levels of immunity towards C19, they have none, which pretty much condemns them to continuing their restrictions forever more. It will be interesting to see how they deal with that.

I totally agree with this. By locking down and hard too, they are actually prolonging the pandemic within their country. They are killing their people through lockdown too, as their health systems concentrate on covid and not other more common illnesses - heart disease, strokes, cancer and of course the mental health damage of lockdowns and social isolation

This is a remarkably inaccurate post, with regards to New Zealand in particular. They hit it very hard for a fairly short period of time, closed their borders and got on with their lives in a way we could only dream of. My son was at Rugby matches, drinking beer with thousands of people when we were still quite rigidly locked down. 

The impact on their health service has been very limited as well. Look at the deaths in that chart. Where we have had over 150,000 they have had 52. Their health service has largely got on with business as usual. 

Finding a way out and reopening their borders is going to be tricky, but they now have one of the best vaccinated populations in the world, which will certainly help. 

Hmmm. Yes and no. Like so many things to do with Covid , things need to be taken in context. Yes he probably was drinking beer and watching sport while we were in lockdown - simply it was winter here and summer there. Six months later in August they were in Delta lockdown as we were quaffing beer with no restrictions. In fact we haven’t really had any since. 

Yes they’ve managed the cases well and have had few deaths but let’s face it - being a remote island which isn’t a global hub and has far fewer tourists, as well as being the same size as the U.K. but with about 8% of the population - it was never going to be a big ask to keep it at bay. In fact they’ve had to backtrack on their zero Covid policy as being impossible. The only similarity is that both populations have a high percentage of obesity - more than ours, which is saying something. 

As you say reopening borders will be tricky. Whilst they are well vaccinated they have virtually no community immunity through infections - arguably far better protection so it will be interesting to see what happens when Omicron hits. They are in a better position than China certainly. 

Also it’s fair to say that they haven’t treated their own people that well, by refusing to allow them back home/visit family etc. 

So it’s swings and roundabouts. 

jimi_man

michael1234 said:

Ibrahim5 said:

There is a whole science developing around whether it is worth discussing COVID with anti vaxxers. The consensus appears to be that it is pointless. If you try to make them see sense then you are seen as part of the mainstream and so shouldn't be believed. These discussions just go round in circles.

Firstly cards on the table. I'm double vaxed and plan to have my booster at long last when I get back to the UK soon.

That said, I resent the term "anti-vaxers". Yes there are probably some loony, diehard flat-earth types who will never have it but I think debate should never be shut down. In particular should healthy young children have it and if so we should come clean that the main reason for asking them to have it is down to protecting older or people with existing conditions - it is nothing to do with protecting children. The odds of them coming to serious harm from covid are vanishingly small.

At the same time we have the BBC and others attributing the less dangerous (to an individual) nature of omicron to the vaccine. In fact that is likely part of the reason but it has also been shown to be intrinsically less pathogenic.

This "come on get your jab" propaganda (definition: news which is designed to influence behaviour) is IMO counter-productive as many like me will see right through it.

I also don’t like the term ‘anti vaxxer’ mainly because that signifies that they are anti all vaccines when often the truth is that they’ve had plenty of vaccines throughout their life and are just against the Covid one.