Jump to content

Coronavirus - Part Two.

Recommended Posts

On 28/02/2021 at 15:40, Annie Bynnol said:

Mixing ethical and medical issues just leads to confusion delay and more deaths.

First lets get as many people protected as quickly as possible.

Let us monitor how the disease is behaving/changing and decide how it is best controlled and how best people all people are protected.

 

I would expect that people of any age who deal with public at this stage  to take measures to protect themselves, their families, friends, work colleagues, transport drivers, shopworkers and anybody else. 

 

The virus is not ageist. The virus won't wait to mutate for long term studies. The virus is not ethical or political.

I am more than happy to accept the risk that is posed by those who cannot be vaccinated and who need the protection of mass immunization.

 

The issue  of "vaccine passports" is a media and an invention of the chattering classes. How can we possibly object to something that has not been defined? Is it to do with travel, international travel, work places, shops, restaurants ....?

 

Declarations of fitness to work/travel, quarantine regulations etc have been around for a thousand+ years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the vaccine does not stop people getting the virus or spreading the virus then what is the rush ? as long as those at risk are vaccinated that should be the focus.   All the talk about people having to have the vaccine and every person who dares to ask a question about it on the news is just put down as "anti vax" so there is no sensible discussions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, petemcewan said:

Apelike,

I think that's a pretty good description you've given  of 

virus mutation cycles.

There is a theory by a Japanese guy that Darwin was wrong to assume that natural selection was the driving force behind evolution. He proposes that it's actually molecule mutations that is the driving force something which can now easily be seen to occur in the coronavirus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit highbrow for me, but if that means that I'll evolve not by studying hard but simply due to molecules, then that's great by me - I'll get there with out all that hard work!  Thanks team!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MuteWitness said:

If the vaccine does not stop people getting the virus or spreading the virus then what is the rush ? as long as those at risk are vaccinated that should be the focus.   All the talk about people having to have the vaccine and every person who dares to ask a question about it on the news is just put down as "anti vax" so there is no sensible discussions.  

The vaccines enables antibodies to be created that attack incoming incoming viruses.

The virus therefore cannot replicate in the vast quantities within the body.

This reduces the opportunity for the virus to spread.

It also reduces the chances of harmful mutations.

If a person cannot take the vaccine then we must all help to protect them.

If they can take the vaccine but refuse it is quite correct for society to challenge them as to the basis of their reasoning, asses the potential impact and decide on suitable strategies to mitigate harm.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

It also reduces the chances of harmful mutations.

 

It has been reported that they are not sure if just having the first vaccine will allow more mutations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, apelike said:

There is a theory by a Japanese guy that Darwin was wrong to assume that natural selection was the driving force behind evolution. He proposes that it's actually molecule mutations that is the driving force something which can now easily be seen to occur in the coronavirus.

When Darwin and Wallace published their new version of Evolution they proposed Natural Selection as the reason but they had no mechanism. Later discoveries provide the mechanisms -which are still evolving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, El Cid said:

It has been reported that they are not sure if just having the first vaccine will allow more mutations.

they'll say that to get people to make sure people get their second jab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks promising that vaccines help reduce transmission but it is still early days.

Scientists believe virus mutations are more likely if infection rates are still high in a partially vaccinated population (some people having one vaccine only and a large number still not vaccinated at all). That is one reason why I think the government are taking a gamble opening up all schools at once next week. 
Great as vaccines are the government are relying on them too much. We should be holding out with restrictions just a few weeks longer until infection rates are right down and more people are vaccinated.  Infection rates have been falling consistently but they are still 4 times higher than they were last May when lockdown restrictions were relaxed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, redruby said:

It looks promising that vaccines help reduce transmission but it is still early days.

Scientists believe virus mutations are more likely if infection rates are still high in a partially vaccinated population (some people having one vaccine only and a large number still not vaccinated at all). That is one reason why I think the government are taking a gamble opening up all schools at once next week. 
Great as vaccines are the government are relying on them too much. We should be holding out with restrictions just a few weeks longer until infection rates are right down and more people are vaccinated.  Infection rates have been falling consistently but they are still 4 times higher than they were last May when lockdown restrictions were relaxed.

agree its too early to ease things - especially to let the kids back and also to be booking holidays etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Mutation ,doesn't necessarily mean "worse".

If scientists get cracking it might be possible to get the virus to mutate itself out of existence.

Quote

On the other hand, their mutation rates are an exploitable Achilles’ heel: researchers and clinicians can increase RNA virus mutation rates using nucleoside analogues, and a 3–5-fold increase in mutation rate causes lethal mutagenisis in human-infecting viruses like polio virus and influenza.

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000003#pbio.3000003.ref002

Edited by petemcewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the vaccine contained the virus would it be better against different mutations ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Mutewitness.

If you read the last but one paragraph. It might answer your question.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/can-the-covid-19-vaccine-beat-the-proliferation-of-new-virus-mutations

 

“These data highlight the prospect of reinfection with antigenically distinct variants and may foreshadow reduced efficacy of current spike-based vaccines.”

mRNA vaccines can be modified quickly to address emerging variants. 

Edited by petemcewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.