Jump to content

Coronavirus_2020.01.28


Jaydee
 Share

Recommended Posts

An admission you likely won't find on mainstream media or Youtube (yet), already shutdown by twitter. 

You will be able to watch it all play out over the next two years though, even now the dam is starting to leak and high school biology questions (that should have already been answered) are being considered without ridicule. 

For the record, it was that ridicule, offered by people unable to even discuss the topic at a basic level that I found most despicable.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The good, the bad and the ugly

ADVANTAGES of gene therapy 

 

“ Gene therapy replaces a faulty gene or adds a new gene in an attempt to cure disease or improve your body's ability to fight disease. Gene therapy holds promise for treating a wide range of diseases, such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, diabetes, hemophilia and AIDS.”

 

 

RISKS of gene therapy

 

Gene therapy has some potential risks. A gene can't easily be inserted directly into your cells.
 
  • Unwanted immune system reaction. Your body's immune system may see the newly introduced viruses as intruders and attack them. ... 
  • Targeting the wrong cells. ... 
  • Infection caused by the virus. ... 
  • Possibility of causing a tumor.

 

The ethical issues surrounding gene therapy

 

Because gene therapy involves making changes to the body’s basic building blocks (DNA), it raises many unique ethical concerns. The ethical questions surrounding gene therapy and genome editing include:

  • How can “good” and “bad” uses of these technologies be distinguished?

  • Who decides which traits are normal and which constitute a disability or disorder?

  • Will the high costs of gene therapy make it available only to the wealthy?

  • Could the widespread use of gene therapy make society less accepting of people who are different?

  • Should people be allowed to use gene therapy to enhance basic human traits such as height, intelligence, or athletic ability?

Current research on gene therapy treatment has focused on targeting body (somatic) cells such as bone marrow or blood cells. This type of genetic alteration cannot be passed to a person’s children. Gene therapy could be targeted to egg and sperm cells (germ cells), however, which would allow the genetic changes to be passed to future generations. This approach is known as germline gene therapy.

The idea of these germline alterations is controversial. While it could spare future generations in a family from having a particular genetic disorder, it might affect the development of a fetus in unexpected ways or have long-term side effects that are not yet known. Because people who would be affected by germline gene therapy are not yet born, they can’t choose whether to have the treatment. Because of these ethical concerns, the U.S. Government does not allow federal funds to be used for research on germline gene therapy in people.

 

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/ethics/

 

 

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/gene-therapy/about/pac-20384619

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

Gene therapy has some potential risks.

Especially when it takes place against a backdrop of government and media censorship that bans questions, answers and opinions. Complete immunity for any and all ill effects is icing on the cake.

Those 70 percenters either had full and complete faith in government, media and big pharma or they were in full stampede. When people actively ridicule reasonable questions it's usually the latter IMO.

But, we’ll find out in 2 years and at that point, it may be the 70 percenters asking tough questions.... they may even start demanding the answers they denied others. I predict that as 30 percenters interest in this declines (it already is IMO), their's will grow exponentially.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

No Place Like Home: Majority of Canadians Agree Their Home Has Become More Important to Them (75%) Because of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Toronto, ON, March 16, 2022 – Since March 2020, the directive to Canadians has been clear:  staying close to home has never been more important in order to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Two years later, as public health restrictions are now easing across the country, Canadians’ perspectives on their home and what it means to them has shifted since before the pandemic began. A new Ipsos poll conducted on behalf of Peerage Realty Partners finds that a strong majority (75%) of Canadians agree their home has become more important to them because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Women (79%) are significantly more likely than men (70%) to agree.

Given the degree to which Canadians may have relied on their homes during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is not surprising that two in three Canadians (65%) agree that they feel more emotionally connected to their home because of the pandemic, cutting across lines of age and gender. Regionally, those in Quebec (70%) and British Columbia (68%) are more likely than those in other regions to agree (vs. 66% AB, 64% ON, 64% ATL, 52% SK/MB). In addition, those who own their homes are significantly more likely to feel more emotionally connected to where they live resulting from the pandemic (70%) than those who rent (59%).

Comfort and Safety Top Priorities for Canadians

When asked what attributes are most important to them in deciding where to live, Canadians’ top two considerations are the level of comfort within the home (with 73% ranking this attribute as an eight, nine, or ten out of ten in terms of importance) and the level of safety in the community (71%). Following these, just under six in ten (58%) say the cost to maintain the home is important to them in deciding where to live.

Moreover, the pandemic has led to these attributes being considered even more importantto Canadians relative to other aspects, with 46% agreeing the level of comfort has become more important in considering the impact of the pandemic (24% much more/22% somewhat more) and 43% agreeing the level of safety in the community has become more important (21% much more/22% somewhat more). Proximity to work, school, or other regular commitments has become more important to a minority (30%) of Canadians, likely a reflection of the increased prevalence of remote work or school options over the last two years (12% say this aspect has become less important to them because of the pandemic).

Atlantic Canadians are significantly more likely than those in other regions to say being close to family or friends has become more important to them because of the pandemic (51% vs. 40% AB, 38% QC, 34% ON, 31% SK/MB, 24% BC). Those in Quebec are more likely to mention an increased importance in the market value of the home (40% vs. 35% AB, 33% ATL, 30% ON, 27% BC, 19% SK/MB).

https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/majority-canadians-agree-home-more-important-because-of-pandemic?utm_source=The+Hub&utm_campaign=1939652fb5-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_03_18_05_58&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_429d51ea5d-1939652fb5-522638043&mc_cid=1939652fb5&mc_eid=09433e3d5d


 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting article from the BBC on the Covid situation in China. They had a severe lockdown which prevented the disease from spreading initially. Now however the lockdown is no longer working and the virus is spreading like wildfire while the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths are dropping in the rest of the world.

It appears to me that this is largely because the virus could be slowed by vaccines and isolation it couldn't be stopped and eventually gathers strength. In the western world the virus ran did its thing but now our herd immunity, which is what is ultimately going to control it is rapidly kicking in.

The good news for China is that Omicron seems to be replacing the earlier more severe forms of Covid and so they should hopefully soon see rapid improvement there as well. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-60762032

China and Hong Kong are seeing their largest spike in Covid cases in more than two years, despite determinedly pursuing one of the world's strictest virus elimination policies.

Most countries are now trying to live with coronavirus - so how long can China hold on to its "zero-Covid" goal?

Striking a balance

For the last two years, China's strict measures to contain Covid, enforced by swift lockdowns and aggressive restrictions, seemed to be largely paying off.

As the rest of the world grappled with surges in cases and deaths in 2020, China's President Xi Jinping declared the country's handling of the pandemic through lockdowns and widespread testing a success - and touted its methods as being the most effective in dealing with the virus.

The zero-Covid model was therefore strictly enforced both in mainland China and Hong Kong.

But things soon began to change.

The first signs of strain on the much-vaunted zero-Covid model in China began to appear when authorities were forced to impose increasingly large lockdowns triggered by the more infectious Delta variant in 2021. These started to raise questions about how long China could maintain this policy.

And now Omicron has called it further into question.

In mainland China, thousands of cases are now being reported each day and millions of people in the north-eastern province of Jilin have been placed under lockdown - the first time China had restricted an entire province since the early days of the pandemic in Wuhan.

Hong Kong, which was previously almost untouched by the virus, is now seeing 30,000 cases and more than 200 deaths a day. The city's healthcare system has been overrun, with shocking images of people in need of hospital care receiving rudimentary treatment outside medical facilities.

IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES

Shocking images from Hong Kong showed patients lying outside overwhelmed hospitals

It's a situation unlike anything the country has seen for the past two years.

Officially, the Chinese government has not budged from its zero-Covid position. But there have been some signs that it may be softening its stance on how best to deal with the virus.

Earlier this week, China's National Health Commission said it was changing its rules so that mild cases would be isolated in centralised locations, rather than treated in hospitals. The criteria for a patient to be discharged from quarantine has also been lowered.

"In the past, China would actually admit every patient - whether they were asymptomatic or with just mild symptoms - to the hospital," Prof Jin Dong-yan of The University of Hong Kong told the BBC.

"The fact they're now proposing to [locally isolate] them - that's one step to show they recognise that there's a large group of people that do not need much help."

During China's recent National People's Congress meeting, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang also said China would continue to make its Covid-19 response more "scientific and targeted".

"[Premier Li's speech] hints that the government is ready to be more flexible and loosen restrictions gradually," said Prof Chen Gang of the National University of Singapore.

"Under [a more] dynamic policy, more emphasis will be placed on striking a balance between disease control and enabling people to live normal lives."

On the ground as well, there's also been a noticeable shift in attitudes.

Last year, top Chinese epidemiologist Zhang Wenhong suggested that China would eventually need to "co-exist" with the virus. He was met with a barrage of criticism, with some calling him a traitor, and others saying he was colluding with foreign forces to undermine China's Covid response.

But just this week, Dr Zhang posted another message on Chinese social media that got a very different reception.

While he said that it was necessary for China to maintain its zero-Covid strategy for now, he added that it should not be afraid to eventually move towards a more "sustainable coping strategy" in the future.

"With this virus, alleviating fear is the first step we must take," he said. "Omicron has become so mild, in countries that have achieved widespread vaccination and natural infection rates, it may be less deadly than even the flu."

This time, he was not met with vitriol - and was instead widely praised.

"Thank you Dr Zhang for your scientific and rational [take] on issues," one comment said.

Others shared their struggles over the past years - a sign of growing frustration after more than two years of lockdowns.

"These past few years, I have suffered a lot. I have lost my freedom - all in the name of the virus," one said.

According to Professor Huang Yanzhong, a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, there is a sense that "public support for zero-Covid is in decline".

"My sense is that especially in bigger cities like Shanghai, some people are saying it's just too much. While there's still overall public support for zero-Covid - it's being undermined by the recent Omicron wave," he said.

Politics and the pandemic

So how much longer can China hold on?

Experts say we are unlikely to see any big moves this year, especially not now while it is in the throes of its biggest outbreak in years.

Many believe loosening restrictions now could lead to an overwhelmed healthcare system - and a huge spike in the death rate.

All mainland China needs to do is look to Hong Kong to see a city struggling to contain its outbreak, with morgues filled to capacity and hospitals swamped with patients.

Prof Huang says China's Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been proclaiming the fact that it has avoided a significant number of deaths, and "there is no doubt that opening will lead to a rapid increase in cases".

"The dilemma is do you want to accept short-term pain - a significant increase of cases, deaths - for long-term stability?"

Analysts believe the answer is unlikely to be yes - especially right now.

"If restrictions are loosened, the number of deaths may shoot up, leading to social panic - something that will not be allowed in the politically sensitive year of the 20th party congress," said Prof Chen.

This Chinese Communist Party 20th party congress is one of the country's most important political events of the decade, and on paper, was when President Xi Jinping was supposed to step down, having come to the end of his two term-limit in office.

IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES

Image caption,

As another party congress approaches, it seems likely that Mr Xi will secure another term in power

But this limit was removed and there is growing certainty that Mr Xi will secure another term in power as party chief and come out of the congress "more powerful than ever", according to Michael Cunningham of research institution the Heritage Foundation.

"The government usually shifts the pendulum toward preserving stability in party congress years, as those in power seek to avoid crises rather than make bold decisions that, if unsuccessful, could negatively impact their career prospects," said Mr Cunningham in a report.

Mr Xi himself said in a politburo meeting on Thursday that China would stick to its dynamic zero-Covid policy, saying: "Victory comes from perseverance".

With this clear instruction coming from the top, its more likely that officials will instead put in place smaller and gradual measures, similar to those already being made - but with no "fundamental" change - for now.

"The problem with the zero-Covid policy is that it doesn't accept risks," says Prof Huang.

"And unless [the Chinese government] is no longer obsessed with worst-case scenarios, you cannot expect to see a fundamental change to its policy."

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

Patients who got the antiparasitic drug didn’t fare better than those who received a placebo

im-506883?width=860&size=1.5

Mon Mar 21, 2022 - WSJ

Quote

'In June 2020, a group of researchers in Australia published a paper showing that large amounts of ivermectin could halt replication of the coronavirus in cell cultures. But there was a problem: To achieve that effect, a person would have to take up to 100 times as much ivermectin as the dose approved for use in humans.'

'Patients who got the antiparasitic drug didn’t fare better than those who received a placebo'

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a Poynter fact check on an issue that I didn't even know was an issue.

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/theres-no-scientific-evidence-that-vaccines-are-responsible-for-strange-blood-clots-observed-by-embalmers/

At this point, the cause is of less concern than the existence of the condition itself IMO. Whether it's a product of the vaccine or gain of function research is largely moot now because we are where we are.

Regardless of cause though, this will be of interest in the near to mid term and personally, I'm becoming increasingly worried about long term effects. Another area of concern is blood donations assuming this actually does go sideways with either vaccinated individuals or those who have had the virus (regardless of vaccination status).

I

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when mom told you to eat your broccoli?   COVID-19 Canada | CTV News | Coronavirus



In research, reports and data. A chemical found in broccoli and other leafy greens appears to be able to slow the growth of SARS-CoV-2 in mammalian cells and mice. This is according to a recent study conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins Children's Center in the United States. Sulforaphane, a chemical found in a number of vegetables, was capable of reducing the replication of six strains of SARS-CoV-2 by 50 per cent, including the Delta and Omicron variants

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

Here's a Poynter fact check on an issue that I didn't even know was an issue.

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/theres-no-scientific-evidence-that-vaccines-are-responsible-for-strange-blood-clots-observed-by-embalmers/

At this point, the cause is of less concern than the existence of the condition itself IMO. Whether it's a product of the vaccine or gain of function research is largely moot now because we are where we are.

Regardless of cause though, this will be of interest in the near to mid term and personally, I'm becoming increasingly worried about long term effects. Another area of concern is blood donations assuming this actually does go sideways with either vaccinated individuals or those who have had the virus (regardless of vaccination status).

I

I agree. I took their word for it initially, and it certainly made life more comfortable because of the mandates for the last couple of years.  I'm thinking that in the long run I may just come to regret getting those 2 shots, and I'm even more afraid for those younger than myself.

I still remember the head of the BC Coastal health region saying that the mandates were not really about keeping people safe from getting the vaccines to make uncomfortable enough that people will go and get the shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GDR said:

I still remember the head of the BC Coastal health region saying that the mandates were not really about keeping people safe from getting the vaccines to make uncomfortable enough that people will go and get the shots.

I heard this too, and not just from this one person but from multiple bureaucrats in multiple jurisdictions.  I don't know why people aren't more outraged by this.  To my thinking imposing mandates for this reason is despicable and to admit doing it for this reason should be cause for immediate termination as it completely destroys any chance of seeing this person as having integrity.  Why would I believe anything this person says? 

Imagine your surgeon says;  you didn't need the surgery but I did it because I make a lot of money from it.  Would you trust him again - ever?  The head of a public health unit says; we're not doing this because of the science, we're not doing it because it will keep you safe, we're trying to inflict as much suffering as possible to force you to follow our dictum.  Yeah, forever tainted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6302151405001#sp=show-clips

Frankly,  I didn't know this had become a significant problem and I'm simply assuming the report is accurate here (I don't actually know). BTW, I placed the post here simply because it appears to be a covid mandate shortage even though it comes on top of (what I would now acknowledge as) an actual pilot shortage... it's a different issue altogether IMO.  

To a certain extent, I'm applying my own situation (and thinking) to it as well. So, if it's true, and if people left the industry or retired early due to vaccine mandates, they are quite likely doing other things right now.... like driving trucks. 

If experienced pilots were actually terminated (either by mandate or early separation/retirement) as opposed to being placed in an employment holding pattern of sorts... would they return and start all over again at the bottom of the list with apprentice level pay? Personally, I wouldn't, I didn't, and I have no further interest in pursuing it.   

Is that an issue for others or am I simply an army of one here? In other words, if those terminated for mandate reasons aren't offered "right of return" at their previous company without penalty, how likely are they to return?

If attrition due to mandates is layered on top of the pre pandemic concerns about pilot shortages, I'm guessing this could become a really ugly situation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolfhunter;

I can tell you this;  a significant number of pilots at AC, WS and other companies are facing imminent termination (May 2nd) due to vaccination refusal.  The numbers I've heard vary but it appears to be in the hundreds.  These pilots were effectively terminated on November 1st when they were forced on unpaid leave with no benefits.

In discussions with them many feel they have been so poorly treated by their respective companies and unions that they may not return even if told it was possible.  I think the chance that any would restart at the bottom of the seniority list to be virtually zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2022 at 10:08 AM, Seeker said:

In discussions with them many feel they have been so poorly treated by their respective companies and unions that they may not return even if told it was possible.  I think the chance that any would restart at the bottom of the seniority list to be virtually zero.

Thanks for the update, after giving up on the industry altogether I stopped tracking it.

I certainly understand the "moving to an expensive place and starting over at apprentice wages" aspect of it though. Being dual qualified with (dare I say) significant experience in both, I found the wage situation in fixed wing and the TFW influence in the helicopter world to be a career ending event. It wasn't worth the pain (or expense) of starting over at my age.

I hope that (or similar) doesn't prove to be the case for folks caught up in this situation. Forcing (or maybe inducing is a better word) talented, experienced people to move on to other endeavours when they would prefer not to is such a waste of that talent.... almost unfathomable (to me) during shortages of the very experience being rudely discarded.

Pretty sad eh? I'm guessing that they must feel tremendously let down by their respective unions and totally abandoned by the companies they once served. There is also a profound sense of loss (in general) for a job/career they loved. The fact that it didn't have to end this way only makes it worse IMO.

Separate thread I guess, sorry for the drift... best of luck to those caught up in this debacle.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2022 at 5:04 PM, GDR said:

I'm thinking that in the long run I may just come to regret getting those 2 shots, and I'm even more afraid for those younger than myself.

Anecdotally (gym talk mostly), you’re certainly not alone in that sentiment.

What pushed me away from it (in spades) was not so much the government position, the media support or the banning of contrary minded opinion (although those were red flags), it was the ridicule of people who were unable to discuss basic biology at the most rudimentary of high school levels. Look at some of the comments on the other side of the forum “freedom to fly” (or some such) as an example of its presence and powerful effect.     

It’s pervasive and that phenomenon (IMO) is largely a product of ego and narrative. I run from folks like that…. it’s just a scary combination. That said, they’re a constant, they help with decision making and my universe would collapse without them.

I say thanks for the snarky memes and move on…. it’s proof of being on the right path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In earlier posts, some pointed out how well the NWT and Atlantic Canada were doing compared with the rest of Canada.

Interesting article today:

Quote

Atlantic Canada, Northwest Territories report highest COVID-19 cases per capita

Tom Yun

Tom YunCTVNews.ca writer

@thetomyun Contact

 

TORONTO -- With health authorities across Canada on high alert for another wave of COVID-19 as health restrictions continue to ease, the Atlantic provinces as well as the Northwest Territories are reporting more COVID-19 cases per capita than anywhere else in Canada or the U.S.

Experts say the high case-counts in these regions is likely due to the fact that some of these provinces have fewer restrictions on who is eligible for a COVID-19 test.

According to CTVNews.ca's tracker comparing Canadian provinces and territories with U.S. states, Prince Edward Island is reporting an average of 350.6 daily cases over the last seven days as of Saturday. That translates to 2,216.6 cases per million, which is more than every other jurisdiction on both sides of the border.

The Northwest Territories ranks second on the list, with an average of 88.3 cases per day. That equates to 1,996.1 cases per million. This is followed by Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which are reporting 757.6, 612.1 and 567.0 cases per million, respectively.

The looser testing criteria in some of these provinces "would explain much of the difference, possibly all of it," Colin Furness, an expert in infectious disease epidemiology from the University of Toronto, told CTVNews.ca in an email on Friday.

However, N.W.T. still has the second highest COVID-19 case count per capita, despite the territory's strict PCR testing eligibility criteria. Furness said the "lower population immunity in areas that have been successful with COVID in the first several waves" may be another factor that explains the high cases reported in these regions.

In late 2021, when COVID-19 cases surged across Canada due to the rise of the Omicron variant, many provinces started restricting access to laboratory tests as testing capacity became strained.

In provinces like Ontario, Quebec, B.C. and others, only health-care workers, people in long-term care homes, immunocompromised people, pregnant people and others deemed to be at a higher risk of COVID-19 are eligible to be tested at a screening clinic. Anyone else exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms are being encouraged to stay home and use rapid at-home tests.

However, in P.E.I., COVID-19 testing clinics are available for anyone who develops symptoms or has already tested positive with a rapid at-home test. P.E.I.'s top doctor has also attributed the province's higher case counts to the wider access to testing.

"In P.E.I., we've had much better access to COVID-19 testing compared to other provinces and territories, given we have tested more people. It is really not accurate to compare our case rates directly with other jurisdictions," P.E.I. Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Heather Morrison said during a COVID-19 media briefing last month.

In Nova Scotia, anyone who is symptomatic and previously tested positive on a rapid test is eligible for a PCR test. New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador have more restrictions on who is eligible for a PCR test, but residents who test positive with a rapid test can report their positive results to their provinces online.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Kargokings said:

Furness said the "lower population immunity in areas that have been successful with COVID in the first several waves" may be another factor that explains the high cases reported in these regions.

I think this just makes again the argument that the way out of this is herd immunity not more vaccines. In addition if you look at this CTV site those areas have the highest rate of vaccination in the country.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-vaccination-tracker-how-many-people-in-canada-have-received-shots-1.5247509

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GDR said:

I think this just makes again the argument that the way out of this is herd immunity not more vaccines. In addition if you look at this CTV site those areas have the highest rate of vaccination in the country.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-vaccination-tracker-how-many-people-in-canada-have-received-shots-1.5247509

From WHO Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Herd immunity, lockdowns and COVID-19 (who.int)

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Herd immunity, lockdowns and COVID-19

31 December 2020 | Q&A

Updated 31 December 2020

 

'Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.

Herd immunity against COVID-19 should be achieved by protecting people through vaccination, not by exposing them to the pathogen that causes the disease. Read the Director-General’s 12 October media briefing speech for more detail. 

Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing on the pathogen, breaking any chains of transmission. Visit our webpage on COVID-19 and vaccines for more detail. 

To safely achieve herd immunity against COVID-19, a substantial proportion of a population would need to be vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population. One of the aims with working towards herd immunity is to keep vulnerable groups who cannot get vaccinated (e.g. due to health conditions like allergic reactions to the vaccine) safe and protected from the disease. Read our Q&A on vaccines and immunization for more information.

The percentage of people who need to be immune in order to achieve herd immunity varies with each disease. For example, herd immunity against measles requires about 95% of a population to be vaccinated. The remaining 5% will be protected by the fact that measles will not spread among those who are vaccinated. For polio, the threshold is about 80%. The proportion of the population that must be vaccinated against COVID-19 to begin inducing herd immunity is not known. This is an important area of research and will likely vary according to the community, the vaccine, the populations prioritized for vaccination, and other factors.  

Achieving herd immunity with safe and effective vaccines makes diseases rarer and saves lives. 

Find out more about the science behind herd immunity by watching or reading this interview with WHO’s Chief Scientist, Dr Soumya Swaminathan.

 

Attempts to reach ‘herd immunity’ through exposing people to a virus are scientifically problematic and unethical. Letting COVID-19 spread through populations, of any age or health status will lead to unnecessary infections, suffering and death.

The vast majority of people in most countries remain susceptible to this virus. Seroprevalence surveys suggest that in most countries, less than 10% of the population have been infected with COVID-19.

We are still learning about immunity to COVID-19. Most people who are infected with COVID-19 develop an immune response within the first few weeks, but we don’t know how strong or lasting that immune response is, or how it differs for different people. There have also been reports of people infected with COVID-19 for a second time.         

Until we better understand COVID-19 immunity, it will not be possible to know how much of a population is immune and how long that immunity last for, let alone make future predictions. These challenges should preclude any plans that try to increase immunity within a population by allowing people to get infected.

Although older people and those with underlying conditions are most at risk of severe disease and death, they are not the only ones at risk.

Finally, while most infected people get mild or moderate forms of COVID-19 and some experience no disease, many become seriously ill and must be admitted into hospital. We are only beginning to understand the long-term health impacts among people who have had COVID-19, including what is being described as ‘Long COVID.’ WHO is working with clinicians and patient groups to better understand the long term effects of COVID-19.  

Read the Director-General’s opening remarks at the 12 October COVID-19 briefing for a summary of WHO’s position.

Most people who are infected with COVID-19 develop an immune response within the first few weeks after infection.

Research is still ongoing into how strong that protection is and how long it lasts. WHO is also looking into whether the strength and length of immune response depends on the type of infection a person has: without symptoms (‘asymptomatic’), mild or severe. Even people without symptoms seem to develop an immune response.

Globally, data from seroprevalence studies suggests that less 10% of those studied have been infected, meaning that the vast majority of the world’s population remains susceptible to this virus.

For other coronaviruses – such as the common cold, SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) – immunity declines over time, as is the case with other diseases. While people infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus develop antibodies and immunity, we do not yet know how long it lasts. 

Watch this conversation with Dr Mike Ryan and Dr Maria Van Kerkhove for more information on immunity.

 

Large scale physical distancing measures and movement restrictions, often referred to as ‘lockdowns’, can slow COVID‑19 transmission by limiting contact between people.

However, these measures can have a profound negative impact on individuals, communities, and societies by bringing social and economic life to a near stop. Such measures disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups, including people in poverty, migrants, internally displaced people and refugees, who most often live in overcrowded and under resourced settings, and depend on daily labour for subsistence.

WHO recognizes that at certain points, some countries have had no choice but to issue stay-at-home orders and other measures, to buy time.

Governments must make the most of the extra time granted by ‘lockdown’ measures by doing all they can to build their capacities to detect, isolate, test and care for all cases; trace and quarantine all contacts; engage, empower and enable populations to drive the societal response and more.

WHO is hopeful that countries will use targeted interventions where and when needed, based on the local situation.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Kargokings said:

From WHO Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Herd immunity, lockdowns and COVID-19 (who.int)

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Herd immunity, lockdowns and COVID-19

31 December 2020 | Q&A

Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing on the pathogen, breaking any chains of transmission.

I'll just quote one paragraph from this article from Dec 2020 to show just how wrong they were. This is presented, along with the whole article in general,  as a statement of fact. It is undeniably wrong. Vaccinated people still got the virus and vaccinated people still spread the virus. We know that, and even the WHO agrees that these claims turned out to be false, along with the acknowledgement recently that there is strong evidence that the Pfizer shot has been the cause of hearing damage.

The pharmaceutical companies convinced or coerced governments to promote the belief that the only solution was vaccines. Governments took it one step further and claimed that there was no early treatment that would prevent the effect of the virus to worsen. They went even further again, particularly in Canada, and made it illegal to try and mitigate the effects of the disease and to stay home and wait for the disease to get critical before admitting them to hospital and treating the virus.

I suggest that if the pharmaceuticals had an ounce of integrity they would have put as much effort into early  treatment of the virus that they put into a vaccine. The problem is of course that there isn't nearly as much money to be made in a treatment as opposed to a vaccine. Even after the vaccines were in place the government by legislation made it virtually impossible to use a treatment even if one was found.   

As I said in my last post the stats obviously show that the vaccines did not build herd immunity as the WHO claimed they would. What we can be grateful for it that Omicron with its flu like symptoms is giving us herd immunity against the more virulent variants. If anything the vaccines have lengthened the time frame of the pandemic and the mandates have caused massive social and financial distress that will have repercussions for decades.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, GDR said:

I'll just quote one paragraph from this article from Dec 2020 to show just how wrong they were. This is presented, along with the whole article in general,  as a statement of fact. It is undeniably wrong. Vaccinated people still got the virus and vaccinated people still spread the virus. We know that, and even the WHO agrees that these claims turned out to be false, along with the acknowledgement recently that there is strong evidence that the Pfizer shot has been the cause of hearing damage.

The pharmaceutical companies convinced or coerced governments to promote the belief that the only solution was vaccines. Governments took it one step further and claimed that there was no early treatment that would prevent the effect of the virus to worsen. They went even further again, particularly in Canada, and made it illegal to try and mitigate the effects of the disease and to stay home and wait for the disease to get critical before admitting them to hospital and treating the virus.

I suggest that if the pharmaceuticals had an ounce of integrity they would have put as much effort into early  treatment of the virus that they put into a vaccine. The problem is of course that there isn't nearly as much money to be made in a treatment as opposed to a vaccine. Even after the vaccines were in place the government by legislation made it virtually impossible to use a treatment even if one was found.   

As I said in my last post the stats obviously show that the vaccines did not build herd immunity as the WHO claimed they would. What we can be grateful for it that Omicron with its flu like symptoms is giving us herd immunity against the more virulent variants. If anything the vaccines have lengthened the time frame of the pandemic and the mandates have caused massive social and financial distress that will have repercussions for decades.

 

Excellent post.  Good on you for carrying this flag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It started in China, and it’s going crazy in China right now. Shanghai, a city of 25 million under lockdown.

 

Shanghai Lockdown Risks Becoming Biggest Crisis of Xi’s Tenure

Bloomberg Daybreak: Australia

 

April 7th, 2022, 8:09 PM EDT

The longer Shanghai stays in lockdown, the louder the frustrations voiced by residents have become. Reports are mounting of food shortages and shortages of other essentials for the 25 million people cooped up at home, all in isolation. It’s one of the biggest crises facing President Xi Jinping since he came to office 10 years ago. Bloomberg’s Stephen Engle reports on “Bloomberg Daybreak: Australia.” (Source: Bloomberg)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2022-04-08/shanghai-lockdown-risks-becoming-biggest-crisis-for-xi-video

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...