Peter Sagan tests positive for COVID-19 for second time in less than a year

wycombewheeler wrote:

Yes catching the virus is more risky, but that's in the past now. That was last February

In my last post I said that is a fair point

Captain Badger wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Yes catching the virus is more risky, but that's in the past now. That was last February

In my last post I said that is a fair point

 

yes but then you continued to say that vaccination was controlled and low risk compared to catching the virus, which I didn't argue against. What I said was I expect he is in a similar position to the vaccinated already.

People who have never had it would be crazy not to take the free vaccine, risks from vaccines are tiny compared to risks from the virus. 

But people who have already recovered are only in a marginally worse position that someone with two doses of vaccine (By Rendal's figures). No one would be pushing a vaccine that offered a 10-20% reduction in risk, which seems to be the difference between the vaccinated and the recovered.

Everyone will come into contact with the virus, even if everyone was vaccinated, there would still be enough people capable of transmitting it. 

the ONS survey found 1 in 15 people had it at new year. Are the ONS survey volunteers more or less likely to be anti vaxx than the general population? I would say less as all the nut jobs will not engage with any measures. Therefore, despite being vaccinated and even boostered large numbers are catching it. The majority are probably not even aware they have it. 

So my view is that individuals who have recovered are not significant in the risks faced by the general population, because the virus is so prevalent even among the vaccinated, that people are almost certain to be exposed at some point and the reduction in risk from previous infection is close to the reduction from 2 doses of vaccine.

wycombewheeler wrote:

.....

yes but then you continued to say that vaccination was controlled and low risk compared to catching the virus, which I didn't argue against. What I said was I expect he is in a similar position to the vaccinated already.

People who have never had it would be crazy not to take the free vaccine, risks from vaccines are tiny compared to risks from the virus. 

But people who have already recovered are only in a marginally worse position that someone with two doses of vaccine (By Rendal's figures). No one would be pushing a vaccine that offered a 10-20% reduction in risk, which seems to be the difference between the vaccinated and the recovered.

Everyone will come into contact with the virus, even if everyone was vaccinated, there would still be enough people capable of transmitting it. 

the ONS survey found 1 in 15 people had it at new year. Are the ONS survey volunteers more or less likely to be anti vaxx than the general population? I would say less as all the nut jobs will not engage with any measures. Therefore, despite being vaccinated and even boostered large numbers are catching it. The majority are probably not even aware they have it. 

So my view is that individuals who have recovered are not significant in the risks faced by the general population, because the virus is so prevalent even among the vaccinated, that people are almost certain to be exposed at some point and the reduction in risk from previous infection is close to the reduction from 2 doses of vaccine.

Fair enough

My view is to follow the medical advice, which is take the course and boosters as appropriate, rather than try to extrapolate out of context data on whether a dose of covid = a jab.

Oh, and don't get pissed in Monaco and assault  a police officer cos you've come to the zany conclusion that they're trying to "force vaccinate" you

PS I know you don't do that, but y'never know someone might....

wycombewheeler wrote:

With the high transmissibility of the omicron variant I thnk ithe number of people who will escape it completely is vanishingly small, also anyone who wanted the vaccine could have had it. So what is the detriment to others?

1.  You think completely wrongly.  The vast majority of people with the booster wont get omicron.

2.  The detriment to others is if you had Covid a year/six months/3 months ago you are increasingly likely to catch Omicron and pass it on than someone who's been recently vaccinated - either 2nd dose or booster.

We don't know that they won't get Omicron.

Given how little protection 2 vaccinations give against Omicron I'd suspect that within a few months there will be little or no residual protection from a booster.

I think Wycombewheeler is right, we're all going to get Omicron at some point regardless of vaccination status.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

With the high transmissibility of the omicron variant I thnk ithe number of people who will escape it completely is vanishingly small, also anyone who wanted the vaccine could have had it. So what is the detriment to others?

1.  You think completely wrongly.  The vast majority of people with the booster wont get omicron.

2.  The detriment to others is if you had Covid a year/six months/3 months ago you are increasingly likely to catch Omicron and pass it on than someone who's been recently vaccinated - either 2nd dose or booster.

so we are now saying boosters every 3 months? because anything longer than that is too high a risk? despite everyone being vaccinated. and risk of serious illness resulting being low.

At some point, we'll probably get updated vaccines that target Omicron, or whatever variants have replaced it at that point, which will re-extend the effective period. The problem there is that you have to somehow reach a transition point where you're not still just throwing all your efforts into producing as much vaccine as possible (remember that large parts of the world still only have vaccination rates of a few % at the moment, so there's a long way to go to widespread coverage) and can divert some into keeping up with variants as they emerge.