Virus hotspots could lead to third Covid wave in UK, scientists warn

[Northerner]

Leading scientists have warned that the government is risking a third wave of Covid-19 by easing the lockdown at a time when official data still shows virus hotspots across many parts of the country.

With the UK poised to lift many Covid restrictions on Monday, the scientists accuse ministers of abandoning their promises to “follow the data, not dates” in a rush to reopen society and the economy.

A more cautious, sensible approach would be to wait until more among the tens of millions of people who have yet to be inoculated have had their vaccinations, they say. In addition, they point out that without an adequate system for isolating people who become infected, there could be significant rises in daily Covid cases that could erupt over the next few weeks.

Stephen Griffin, of Leeds University medical school, told the Observer: “There are areas in West Yorkshire, the Black Country and other regions that still have high infection rates. However, many people there cannot afford to self-isolate. We need to tackle that issue urgently or the virus will come back again.”

Virus hotspots could lead to third Covid wave in UK, scientists warn

Boris Johnson accused of dropping pledge to ‘follow data not dates’ and urged to wait for more vaccinations before easing restrictions

www.theguardian.com

I have zero confidence in this government's ability to avoid a third wave, purely because they have dodged the obvious step of enabling infected people to self-isolate without financial hardship As we've already heard, the free tests in England will tell the government nothing if people don't take them up because they can't afford to

 

[Amity Island]

I'm not sure the term "wave" describes the mechanism of what is happening during the lifting of restrictions. It's not a natural wave of a pandemic as such. It's like, if you have a dam and open the gates obviously this will cause a wave, but this is not a natural wave like you get in the sea or during a pandemic if there hadn't been any restrictions. What they are effectively doing is turning a tap on and off.

 

[mikeyB]

Whether there is a third “wave” rather depends on where an outbreak starts, and whether there is an effective tracing system in place. As has been said, if there isn’t the back up for poorly paid folk to be able to self isolate without losing their jobs it’s a waste of time.

That said, we miight be approaching the stage where there may be sufficient numbers of people with antibodies whether by previous infection or immunisation to provide firebreaks. So any outbreak may be sporadic. I think that is why the government are saying that there won’t be another lockdown.

Either that, or with the population at their wits end, we are just going to have to live with this virus, and folk are just going to have to get vaccinated, or get the disease and mebbe die. For sure, as long as there is no restriction on incoming visitors to the UK, there will always be outbreaks.

 

[Amity Island]

That said, we miight be approaching the stage where there may be sufficient numbers of people with antibodies whether by previous infection or immunisation to provide firebreaks.

Well said @mikeyB "antibodies by previous infection". That's something they have been avoiding saying right from day one.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

That's something they have been avoiding saying right from day one.

What do you mean? That was the idea behind the first "Moonshot" last year (the one with immunity passports based on cheap antibody tests), and a minority of scientists have claimed we're close to population immunity levels since about March last year. (Spoiler: they were wrong.)

Nobody's denied that previous infection probably provides good protection. The question has always been how much, for how long, and (in the case of the "immunity passports") how do you avoid incentivising people to get themselves infected.

The difference now is (obviously) the vaccines.

 

[trophywench]

Well - who knows whether people are now immune or not ? Yes we tested positive last December and since then Yes we've had our first jab.

No idea whatsoever whether or how much immunity we have unless as you say, we go round for the afternoon to play with someone who has come out in the spots and is therefore infectious.

 

[Robin]

I’ve just done an antibody test for Biobank, who have got a second big study under way to test for how many people carry antibodies (they did another study last year). One of the things they might want to find out is how long after having Covid you still carry antibodies. After the first studies, the findings were that people still had antibodies six months after having Covid. They couldn’t say further than that, because nobody had had Covid more than 6 months previously at the time, but this was widely reported in the press as 'Antibodies only last 6 months’!
I was disappointed to find that mine came out negative, despite having the first jab, but apparently this is normal, especially in older people, as you might not have developed enough to show up on the test yet, or if you’ve had Covid, you may be protected by your T cells, which also don’t show up on an antibody test.
So I think that tells us that we can measure antibodies til were blue in the face, but it won’t actually show how many people are protected.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I was disappointed to find that mine came out negative, despite having the first jab

Yes, I had the same (and was also slightly disappointed). As you note, there are reasons why it probably doesn't mean much.

 

[Amity Island]

What do you mean? That was the idea behind the first "Moonshot" last year (the one with immunity passports based on cheap antibody tests), and a minority of scientists have claimed we're close to population immunity levels since about March last year. (Spoiler: they were wrong.)

Nobody's denied that previous infection probably provides good protection. The question has always been how much, for how long, and (in the case of the "immunity passports") how do you avoid incentivising people to get themselves infected.

The difference now is (obviously) the vaccines.

I was refering to something I posted at the beginning of lockdowns. I've always understood that once you've caught a particular strain of a flu or coronavirus your body makes T-Cells or Anitbodies which come into action again when the same virus is caught. Isn't that how vaccines work? They made no mention of this when sarscov2 struck.

COVID19 Something they're not telling us

Please correct me if I am wrong or misunderstanding the issue, but, all the guidance being given out about self isolation, social distancing, avoiding people, places, work, travel, old people, the list goes on.....fails to mention a critical piece of information. That is, all this advice only...

forum.diabetes.org.uk

 

[Amity Island]

of the things they might want to find out is how long after having Covid you still carry antibodies. After the first studies, the findings were that people still had antibodies six months after having Covid. They couldn’t say further than that, because nobody had had Covid more than 6 months previously at the time, but this was widely reported in the press as 'Antibodies only last 6 months’!

Thanks Robin,

This is exactly the point I have been trying to make for the past year. They've made no mention about how we make our own antibodies and t-cell responses to flu and coronaviruses. And on that basis destroyed the economy on the basis that we don't know this, when as far as I understand, it has always been the case and taught that way from a young age about how our bodies make antibodies and t-cells etc. Why wouldn't this apply to sarscov2?

And as you say, they keep saying they only give a months protection (at a months study) then "they only give 2 months" (at 2 months of study) and so on, in the end it will be they give life long protection.

 

[Amity Island]

people with antibodies by previous infection

This again is something they are failing to include in their vaccine passports. What happened to immunity?

They are only considering

A: A vaccine or
B: A negative pcr test (not whether you are infectious or not)

but NOT proof of immunity to sarscov2.

WHY? Surely immunity is what it is all about? That's what really matters?

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I've always understood that once you've caught a particular strain of a flu or coronavirus your body makes T-Cells or Anitbodies which come into action again when the same virus is caught. Isn't that how vaccines work? They made no mention of this when sarscov2 struck.

There were lots of questions early on about immunity. Specifically how long it would last (it's known that people can get the same Coronavirus cold twice within a year or two, so there was (and still is) some fear that this Coronavirus might be similar). There's been lots of discussion about Sweden's approach (would the built up immunity help) and (more severely) about Manaus (since it was suggested (probably incorrectly) that there was ~75% immunity caused by earlier infection).

And there was some thought that at various points some parts of our country (like London) had been hit less hard because it had been hit badly earlier (because of immunity).

 

[Bruce Stephens]

A: A vaccine or
B: A negative pcr test (not whether you are infectious or not)

Or (in reports I've read) evidence that you've recovered from a previous infection (so an older positive PCR test).

 

[Bruce Stephens]

It was only last week that scientists were predicting that the UK was within days of reaching herd immunity

Yes, but that was Karl Friston's group at UCL, and his model has always been overly optimistic. (It's not the mainstream view.)

 

[mikeyB]

If you tested for measles antibodies in the population you would find that the vast amount of the population wouldn't have any. Challenge anyone who has had measles with the virus, and the T-Cells, which have a long memory, will come charging out armed to the teeth to sort the virus out. Same with Covid. You may well not find antibodies in previously infected people, but that doesn't mean they don't have any immunity.

You will notice, if, like me, you have moved around the UK, that in the first couple of years you seem to get every cold that's going around. Then you will notice that you hardly get any. This is because there are at least 100 viruses that can cause a cold, and they tend to hang around in geographical areas, so when you move you come across a bunch of viruses that you haven't seen before. So you get get all the colds, until you've built up immunity.

Then you can be the one who say's "I never get colds because I take Vitamin C and Zinc" when all they've done is live in the same area for years. (Neither helps prevent colds)

Why am I telling you this? Because 20% of cold viruses are coronaviruses. That immunity lasts. Covid-19 is just another coronavirus as far as your immune system cares. But your immune system remembers it. Not forever, but certainly for two or three years. So an annual Covid 19 booster should do the trick easily.

This doesn't doesn't apply to those who have suffered a cytokine storm as a result of Covid, but as most of those are dead, it doesn't make any difference to stats.

 

[Amity Island]

Yes, but that was Karl Friston's group at UCL, and his model has always been overly optimistic. (It's not the mainstream view.)

Yes, and Ferguson's model was what the lockdowns and restrictions were based on. How reliable was his model?

 

[Robin]

Wouldn't it be nice if we got a consistent message from the various scientists?

Are their computer modelling programs based on those they use for the weather forecast? We all know they can predict sunshine or snow at the same time.

 

[LaurenH]

Lockdowns are only a temporary solution. If we lived in a responsible society, covid would have died a long time ago. I like the system some states in the US use. They take weekly tests and therefore prevent a big outbreak. It is smart and doesn't stop the economy. Moreover, knowing that you don't have covid makes you more calm. I've had many "what if I have covid" situations and stayed home. Most people are not that worried about the safety of other people. I don't say our government perfect, but people are also responsible for their own health. Please make sure that everyone you know respect safety rules. It's for their own sake and yours.