Coronavirus All Purpose Thread: The unnecessary Dumb Dumb 4th wave

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by blankall

This was prior to December 24th when bc changed the protocol. Now bc is stating no testing if you are vaccinated and have mild symptoms. They've basically given up counting.

that's probably a decent strategy at this point. The PCR test should be moved to a hospital based diagnostic tool. We've been using it for lack of better options to try to manage community spread. But managing community spread is futile at this point, so our testing strategy should also change.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

You are probably right but we also should be learning that letting it run isn't a path of this.

Previous infection isn't stopping omicron either.

And very limited support to the idea that this will constantly mutate in ways that less serious. There will be more dangerous strains that emerge in the future. Just have to hope that our current vaccines and treatments can keep the damage down when that occurs.

And future pan-coronavirus vaccines workout.

Thinking we can "let it" do anything at this point is hubris that will get you nowhere. Covid zero is done, never coming back.

Previous infection "stopping omicron" is also an improper way to look at it. It appears that two vaccines or more, plus an omicron infection, will get you super-immunity.

The upshot: we kept this train on the rails long enough for us to do what we could on the vaccine front. Now we find out how well we can weather the storm.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Thinking we can "let it" do anything at this point is hubris that will get you nowhere. Covid zero is done, never coming back.

Previous infection "stopping omicron" is also an improper way to look at it. It appears that two vaccines or more, plus an omicron infection, will get you super-immunity.

The upshot: we kept this train on the rails long enough for us to do what we could on the vaccine front. Now we find out how well we can weather the storm.

No proof at all towards super immunity.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

There will be more dangerous strains that emerge in the future.

That doesn't seem like a prediction founded on evidence to me. Covid is pretty specifically good at starting a pandemic. It has a relatively long dormancy time, and is deadly but not so deadly that it kills the hosts before they infect a bunch of people. Its likely to continue to mutate, but it doesn't seem pre-ordained that those mutations will make it more dangerous as a pandemic.

After the Spanish Flu I'm the flu didn't get worse and worse every year forever. I think its more likely that we go down that path - covid will be a danger forever, but at some point the vast majority of the unvaccinated will either be dead or have antibodies from infection. With omicron that day is getting here sooner than otherwise. If the healthcare system can hold through this wave (which arrived in winter at Christmas, probably the worst possible time) then things are looking good imo.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

That doesn't seem like a prediction founded on evidence to me. Covid is pretty specifically good at starting a pandemic. It has a relatively long dormancy time, and is deadly but not so deadly that it kills the hosts before they infect a bunch of people. Its likely to continue to mutate, but it doesn't seem pre-ordained that those mutations will make it more dangerous as a pandemic.

After the Spanish Flu I'm the flu didn't get worse and worse every year forever. I think its more likely that we go down that path - covid will be a danger forever, but at some point the vast majority of the unvaccinated will either be dead or have antibodies from infection. With omicron that day is getting here sooner than otherwise. If the healthcare system can hold through this wave (which arrived in winter at Christmas, probably the worst possible time) then things are looking good imo.

I didn't say it will get worse and worse. I meant there will be less dangerous variants and more dangerous variants.

The Spanish flu is the rare case where that occurred. Most other viruses just remain at similar levels. It's not like rabies, measles or HIV mutated and mutated to become less serious over time. We developed vaccines or treatments to make them less serious.

[nfotiu]

I wonder if we're going to see a 2-3 interruption of school after winter break? It seems like everything we did with testing and isolation and testing to get back in will be blown up when they come back.

[La Flames Fan]

Lost my taste and smell for about an hour, took a couple cold and sinus and they both came back. That was really weird.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

Lost my taste and smell for about an hour, took a couple cold and sinus and they both came back. That was really weird.

Short covid?

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

Short covid?

One can only dream...

[TorqueDog]

I think Omicron is where western nations start to pivot away from restrictions and lockdowns of varying severity, to more of a 'live with it and mitigate the worst possible outcomes' strategy.

Also, this looks like it could have some promise:
https://www.defenseone.com/technolog...riants/360089/
https://www.army.mil/article/252890/...pment_strategy

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I didn't say it will get worse and worse. I meant there will be less dangerous variants and more dangerous variants.

The Spanish flu is the rare case where that occurred. Most other viruses just remain at similar levels. It's not like rabies, measles or HIV mutated and mutated to become less serious over time. We developed vaccines or treatments to make them less serious.

That's not true. It's quite likely that most of the corona viruses that we encounter had started out much more severe.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

That's not true. It's quite likely that most of the corona viruses that we encounter had started out much more severe.

I've seen this come up a lot lately, but most of what I have read is that it is a flawed assumption.
This is a good article on the history of it

It was the bacteriologist and comparative pathologist Theobald Smith (1859-1934) who began the narrative of the “law of declining virulence” in the late 19th century.

At around the same time, a talented young Australian mathematician named Robert May came across the work of his compatriot Charles Birch, an eminent ecologist working on the regulation of animal populations. Together with epidemiologist Roy Anderson, May went on to pioneer the application of mathematical modelling to the ecology and evolution of infectious disease. By the late 1970s, May and Anderson had developed the “trade-off” model for the evolution of virulence – the first conceptual framework in 100 years to challenge the Smith’s general law of declining virulence.

The trade-off model recognises that pathogen virulence will not necessarily limit the ease by which a pathogen can transmit from one host to another. It might even enhance it. Without the assumed evolutionary cost to virulence, there is no reason to believe that disease severity will decrease over time. Instead, May and Anderson proposed that the optimal level of virulence for any given pathogen will be determined by a range of factors, such as the availability of susceptible hosts, and the length of time between infection and symptom onset.

This last factor is a key aspect of the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2. The long time period between infection and death (if it occurs) means that SARS-CoV-2 has a significant window in which to replicate and spread, long before it kills its current host.

The trade-off model is now widely accepted. It emphasises that each host-pathogen combination must be considered individually. There is no general evolutionary law for predicting how these relationships will pan out, and certainly no justification for evoking the inevitability of decreased virulence.

There is little or no direct evidence that virulence decreases over time. While newly emerged pathogens, such as HIV and Mers, are often highly virulent, the converse is not true. There are plenty of ancient diseases, such as tuberculosis and gonorrhoea, that are probably just as virulent today as they ever were.

https://theconversation.com/will-cor...-deadly-153817


Also more recent,

Ferguson told MPs that while some viruses did become less dangerous over time this was not always the case. Two of the most prominent variants of Covid-19, the Alpha and Delta variants, had each caused more severe disease than their predecessors, he said.
He said: “It’s too early to say whether Omicron is going to be more or less severe than previous variants, but what we have seen so far is, Alpha has been more severe than the previous strain, a little in terms of severe outcomes counterbalanced by the fact that we have treatments, and Delta was more severe again.

“The trend we have seen so far is toward greater severity, not lesser severity, thankfully countered by better treatments … that mean people have a much better chance of surviving severe Covid today than they did at the outset of the pandemic.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ime-nervtag-uk


I think this is more a case of hoping something will be true, rather than their being scientific evidence and data to support it.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I've seen this come up a lot lately, but most of what I have read is that it is a flawed assumption.
This is a good article on the history of it




https://theconversation.com/will-cor...-deadly-153817


Also more recent,


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ime-nervtag-uk


I think this is more a case of hoping something will be true, rather than their being scientific evidence and data to support it.

I didn't say this was a general rule. I said that the common corona viruses in circulation probably were more severe. This is regularly suggested by virologists today (Racaniello for instance).

However I also recently heard Paul offit say he doesn't believe this is the reason for the apparent lower severity of omicron, which he thinks is due to vaccination and natural immunity rates.

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Accompanying question is how long to book a test.

I called in the evening of Christas Eve (Friday) and the earliest appointment in Calgary and area was on Monday afternoon.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

That's not true. It's quite likely that most of the corona viruses that we encounter had started out much more severe.

Did they become less severe or did people just build up immunity after being exposed?

https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/sta...ObnmKbJUg&s=19

There's a Twitter thread on the topic. I don't know how we would know if old coronavirus evolved to be less severe, but the SARS-COV-1 didn't. MERS didn't.

[burn_this_city]

Are we getting new numbers today or Kenney asleep at the wheel again?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Did they become less severe or did people just build up immunity after being exposed?

https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/sta...ObnmKbJUg&s=19

There's a Twitter thread on the topic. I don't know how we would know if old coronavirus evolved to be less severe, but the SARS-COV-1 didn't. MERS didn't.

Neither of those viruses became endemic. I don't think they are making a claim that they believe is testable. They are just suggesting that it is likely.

[Nancy]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Are we getting new numbers today or Kenney asleep at the wheel again?

I think they said only on Dec. 29 and Jan. 3, or something like that?

EDIT: "New data including daily numbers will be provided on Dec. 29 and Jan. 4."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...shaw-1.6296570

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

You are probably right but we also should be learning that letting it run isn't a path of this.

Previous infection isn't stopping omicron either.

And very limited support to the idea that this will constantly mutate in ways that less serious. There will be more dangerous strains that emerge in the future. Just have to hope that our current vaccines and treatments can keep the damage down when that occurs.

And future pan-coronavirus vaccines workout.

Possibly but unlikely, most viruses mutate to be less deadly, the few examples of becoming more lethal after mutating didn't last long.

Ebola, West Nile and the Spanish flu did but quickly either died out fast or mutated again to be a lot weaker(Spanish flu)

Maybe it's just wishful thinking but I can't find one case where a virus with multiple mutations got more deadly.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Are we getting new numbers today or Kenney asleep at the wheel again?

COVID-19 data reporting will be limited during the holiday closure. Full data dashboards will be released on December 29. Preliminary data will be posted on alberta.ca/covid19 on December 28 and 30. Regular reporting will resume January 4.

Tomorrow.