News Forum - Thailand’s Covid infections push through the 10,000 milestone again

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, JJJ said:

Have you had the “common cold” more than once in your life? Do you think just because you’ve had the cold once you will never have it again? 

That's what "Dr" John Campbell and others are suggesting, at least for a reasonable period. It's totally untrue, which was the point I was making.

[JJJ]

6 hours ago, Stonker said:

 Not correct at all.

The actual study is at

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/omicron-largely-evades-immunity-from-past/

"Controlling for vaccine status, age, sex, ethnicity, asymptomatic status, region and specimen date, Omicron was associated with a 5.40 (95% CI: 4.38-6.63) fold higher risk of reinfection compared with Delta. To put this into context, in the pre-Omicron era, the UK “SIREN” study of COVID infection in healthcare workers estimated that prior infection afforded 85% protection against a second COVID infection over 6 months. The reinfection risk estimated in the current study suggests this protection has  fallen to 19% (95%CI: 0-27%) against an Omicron infection."

Previous infections with any strain "afforded 85% protection against a second COVID infection over 6 months"

An Omicron infection only gives 19% even "against an Omicron infection."

I don’t think the study supports the last sentence. 

The quote from the source says:

“To put this into context, in the pre-Omicron era, the UK “SIREN” study of COVID infection in healthcare workers estimated that prior infection afforded 85% protection against a second COVID infection over 6 months. The reinfection risk estimated in the current study suggests this protection has  fallen to 19% (95%CI: 0-27%) against an Omicron infection.”

I think that means any prior infection confers 19% protection again a new Omicron infection. It’s poorly written for sure. 

[Gerardinho]

On 2/5/2022 at 8:04 PM, Stonker said:

"Easily understandable", yes, as he should be since his doctorate is in teaching not medicine.

A "good source of information", though ... sadly, no, since if he were he'd know that Omicron doesn't give "massive immunity" as many hoped it would but it gives virtually no immunity at all.

Up to fourteen times as many are re-infected after Omicron as were re-infected after Delta, to the extent that two thirds of UK infections are re-infections.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/two-thirds-of-omicron-cases-are-reinfections-uk-study-suggests.html

It does give immunity. It does not give sterilising immunity. Your cannot comment on a topic you do not understand.

 

Omicron infection provides IgAs also, which are cross reactive (IE also provide imperfect protection against other variants) and acts as a booster in terms of B and T cell immunity.

 

Consequently reinfections, whether from Omicron itself or another variant, will result in a far more benign (and shorter) onset of symptoms, if any at all.

[Stonker]

7 minutes ago, Gerardinho said:

It does give immunity. It does not give sterilising immunity. Your cannot comment on a topic you do not understand.

Omicron infection provides IgAs also, which are cross reactive (IE also provide imperfect protection against other variants) and acts as a booster in terms of B and T cell immunity.

Consequently reinfections, whether from Omicron itself or another variant, will result in a far more benign (and shorter) onset of symptoms, if any at all.

Well, I think the experts I linked to and quoted from understand the topic!

They don't agree with you or your view that it gives any worthwhile immunity, gives any protection at all worth having against other variants, or that reinfections are far more benign.

That's spelt out very clearly in the link I gave and the part I quoted.

You're obviously at liberty to disagree, but unless you can give a link to any studies that can support that then ... well ... maybe you're not quite as well informed as you think you are.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, JJJ said:

I don’t think the study supports the last sentence. 

The quote from the source says:

“To put this into context, in the pre-Omicron era, the UK “SIREN” study of COVID infection in healthcare workers estimated that prior infection afforded 85% protection against a second COVID infection over 6 months. The reinfection risk estimated in the current study suggests this protection has  fallen to 19% (95%CI: 0-27%) against an Omicron infection.”

I think that means any prior infection confers 19% protection again a new Omicron infection. It’s poorly written for sure. 

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with as you've just repeated the part I quoted from the conclusion.

The '85%' etc was from prior infections "in the pre-Omicron era", from the Siren study.

The '19%' was from pre-infections in the "current study" which were all during Omicron - that's the only period the study covers.

It's very clear if you read the parameters for the study and the rest of the link, but I only quoted from the conclusion.

 

[AussieBob]

On 2/5/2022 at 4:45 PM, stevenkongju said:

Quick! Suspend Test and Go (and then test again)! It must be the foreigners are bringing it in.

No - just rename it !!   Test and Go and Test and Go (to quarantine) 

[JJJ]

11 hours ago, Stonker said:

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with as you've just repeated the part I quoted from the conclusion.

The '85%' etc was from prior infections "in the pre-Omicron era", from the Siren study.

The '19%' was from pre-infections in the "current study" which were all during Omicron - that's the only period the study covers.

It's very clear if you read the parameters for the study and the rest of the link, but I only quoted from the conclusion.

Your conclusion was:

“An Omicron infection only gives 19% even "against an Omicron infection.”"  
 

But that’s not what the study says. As of December 17 when the paper was published, the new omicron cases would mostly be looking at infection #1 Delta or earlier and infection #2 omicron and that was 19% protection from infection.

It does not mean an omicron infection only gives 19% protection against a new omicron infection.   
 

If an omicron infection provided so little sterilization against itself it wouldn’t peak and fall. 

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, JJJ said:

Your conclusion was:

“An Omicron infection only gives 19% even "against an Omicron infection.”"  
 

But that’s not what the study says. As of December 17 when the paper was published, the new omicron cases would mostly be looking at infection #1 Delta or earlier and infection #2 omicron and that was 19% protection from infection.

It does not mean an omicron infection only gives 19% protection against a new omicron infection.   
 

If an omicron infection provided so little sterilization against itself it wouldn’t peak and fall. 

Without quoting the whole report I genuinely don't know how to make it any clearer what the report says.

You keep on repeating what you think "it doesn't mean" when the report couldn't be clearer about what it means and where the data came from and when:

"The new report (Report 49) from the Imperial College London COVID-19 response team estimates that the risk of reinfection with the Omicron variant is 5.4 times greater than that of the Delta variant. This implies that the protection against reinfection by Omicron afforded by past infection may be as low as 19%.

Researchers estimate the growth and immune escape of the Omicron variant in England. They used data from the UKHSA and NHS for all PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in England who had taken a COVID test between November 29th and December 11th 2021. "

How much clearer can "the risk of reinfection with the Omicron variant is 5.4 times greater than that of the Delta variant" possibly be?

Edit:

The full report is at

 https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/report-49-Omicron/

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, JJJ said:

If an omicron infection provided so little sterilization against itself it wouldn’t peak and fall. 

Infections seldom provide 'sterilization' - they provide varying levels of immunity and protection.

Very different.

You're also assuming that the only or main factor in peaks and falls is immunity.

It isn't.

https://www.vox.com/22905020/omicron-wave-surge-covid-19-cases-vaccines

[Chatogaster]

18 hours ago, JJJ said:

I don’t think the study supports the last sentence. 

[...]

I think that means any prior infection confers 19% protection again a new Omicron infection. It’s poorly written for sure. 

 

You're right (at least almost, because it's slightly more specific than "any prior" infection, but in a direction opposite to the one Stonker assumes).

The actual study (not the link to the news article that was given) is at https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2021-12-16-COVID19-Report-49.pdf, is less messy than the article (not by much), but at least it defines reinfections as "2 positive test results for the same individual 90+ apart".

The study uses data up to Dec. 11 so all first positive test results were from the beginning of September & earlier, which means most were about Delta and none were about Omicron.

An estimate has been found for the level of protection an S+ (like Delta) infection gives against a subsequent Omicron (which is S-) infection. To equate that to the level of protection an Omicron infection gives against a subsequent Omicron infection is no more than a guess.
 

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Chatogaster

[Stonker]

59 minutes ago, Chatogaster said:

You're right (at least almost, because it's slightly more specific than "any prior" infection, but in a direction opposite to the one Stonker assumes).

The actual study (not the link to the news article that was given) is at https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2021-12-16-COVID19-Report-49.pdf, is less messy than the article (not by much), but at least it defines reinfections as "2 positive test results for the same individual 90+ apart".

I 've given direct links to both the study and the Uni's abstract from the study at least three times! Exactly the same link you've just given!

59 minutes ago, Chatogaster said:

The study uses data up to Dec. 11 so all first positive test results were from the beginning of September & earlier, which means most were about Delta and none were about Omicron.

That's badly misleading, as the study and the abstract say and as I've previously quoted:

"They used data from the UKHSA and NHS for all PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in England who had taken a COVID test between November 29th and December 11th 2021."

Whatever spin you try to put on it, the second tests were taken between November 29th and December 11th.

The study clearly and categorically says that. 

Of course the first set of tests were taken earlier - how could they not be ???

Why say something that's so obviously badly misleading ?

59 minutes ago, Chatogaster said:

An estimate has been found for the level of protection an S+ (like Delta) infection gives against a subsequent Omicron (which is S-) infection. To equate that to the level of protection an Omicron infection gives against a subsequent Omicron infection is no more than a guess.
 

Your argument is based entirely on the study being of cases from "September or earlier".

They weren't - the Siren study was, which was why Imperial used it as a comparison, but the Imperial study wasn't - it was specifically about Omicron and based only on second cases from 29 November to 11 December.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, Chatogaster said:

To equate that to the level of protection an Omicron infection gives against a subsequent Omicron infection is no more than a guess.

But they very clearly say that it's an "estimate", AS I QUOTED, but it's based on all the evidence currently available.

Given the time frame, it's impossible for it to be anything else.

"Dr" Campbell's "guess", though, which you seem to be supporting, isn't supported by any studies that include Omicron at all and the studies he cherry picks from don't support his guess.

If you think they do, name any. 

Any at all.

[Chatogaster]

29 minutes ago, Stonker said:

But they very clearly say that it's an "estimate", AS I QUOTED, but it's based on all the evidence currently available.

Given the time frame, it's impossible for it to be anything else.

"Dr" Campbell's "guess", though, which you seem to be supporting, isn't supported by any studies that include Omicron at all and the studies he cherry picks from don't support his guess.

If you think they do, name any. 

Any at all.

 

The study shows that a past Delta (*) infection protects better against (another) Delta infection than it does against an Omicron infection. *) There's a slight simplification in there, but based on the prevalence of Delta at the time I think I'm allowed to summarize the essence like this.

The study does not make a single claim about how a past Omicron infection protects against another Omicron infection. It's plain to see that would be impossible right now and that it will take about 2 months before such studies become viable.

So if I see somebody (JJJ) calmly and rationally objecting to your claim that "An Omicron infection only gives 19% [protection] even against an Omicron infection.", and another person (you) getting agitated about that and even implying stupidity on the side of the objector, I can either be positive towards JJJ, negative against you, or ignore it altogether. I chose positivity.

 

[Stonker]

8 minutes ago, Chatogaster said:

The study does not make a single claim about how a past Omicron infection protects against another Omicron infection. It's plain to see that would be impossible right now and that it will take about 2 months before such studies become viable.

That's simply not true, and you've gone from "positivity" to being misleading, at best.

As you say, it would be impossible to give the direct result of any study to support that, but the study does make estimates based on the science and data available.

If you prefer to dismiss those estimates as just being "guesses" that's up to you, but it all depends on whose "guess" you prefer - not mine or @JJJ's as neither of us are in a position to make an informed guess, but John Campbell's or any respected medical studies.

Imperial College clearly state:

"The new report (Report 49) from the Imperial College London COVID-19 response team estimates that the risk of reinfection with the Omicron variant is 5.4 times greater than that of the Delta variant."

That's their first "claim". It's very clear, and unambiguous.

From that, they say:

" This implies that the protection against reinfection by Omicron afforded by past infection may be as low as 19%."

You and @JJJ disagree with that claim - fine.

I've simply and repeatedly asked you and @JJJ for any evidence to support Dr John Campbell's claims about Omicron giving large scale immunity, which was what @JJJ quoted me objecting to, and you've completely ignored that and given none.

Not just any studies, but any evidence at all.  Any expert opinion to support that conclusion, such as this:

https://www.businessinsider.com/omicron-may-build-superimmunity-for-future-coronavirus-variants-2022-1

or this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/07/omicron-silver-lining-boost-immunity/

(but they both have massive caveats).

I'm happy to give any number that contradict that view, not just from Imperial College based on their estimate from their study, but many others, which include a number of other studies:

https://people.com/health/people-who-had-omicron-arent-necessarily-immune-from-covid-heres-why-they-should-stay-cautious/

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/01/omicron-wave-immunity/621324/

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/how-omicron-highlights-fading-hope-herd-immunity-covid-2022-01-20/

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/omicron-covid-19-immunity-study-7732515/

34 minutes ago, Chatogaster said:

I can either be positive towards JJJ, negative against you, or ignore it altogether. I chose positivity.

In that case this seems to be about nothing more than whether you support @JJJ's view or mine, or want to be "positive" or "negative", which I find a little bizarre.

To me, this is simply about whether you support John Campbell's view that it's all over bar the shouting, which I suppose is being "positive", or the view of the experts based on all the recent evidence which contradicts that so I suppose has to be "negative".

Well, John Campbell, who you're indirectly backing, has a doctorate in teaching, not medicine, but he claims on LinkedIn to be 'practising part time as a doctor' - deceptive at best, as it's generally accepted that only medical doctors practice; he's made totally inaccurate and untrue claims about Ivermectin use in Japan; he's misquoted a paper saying that mRNA vaccines could cause heart problems, saying it could be "incredibly significant" although the publishers themselves "expressed concern" about it's accuracy; he's massively mis-represented UK ONS statistics about Covid deaths, claiming the ONS said that Covid deaths were a tenth of the number given, which the ONS later said was "both factually incorrect and highly misleading”.

He's "easily understandable" as one poster described him here, and good at "disentangling the statistics" to support his views, but what he says is "both factually incorrect and highly misleading”.

... but you're supporting him because it's being "positive" ...

.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/28/ons-debunks-spurious-covid-deaths-claim-shared-by-david-davis

 

 

[Chatogaster]

30 minutes ago, Stonker said:

That's simply not true, and you've gone from "positivity" to being misleading, at best.

As you say, it would be impossible to give the direct result of any study to support that, but the study does make estimates based on the science and data available.

If you prefer to dismiss those estimates as just being "guesses" that's up to you, but it all depends on whose "guess" you prefer - not mine or @JJJ's as neither of us are in a position to make an informed guess, but John Campbell's or any respected medical studies.

Imperial College clearly state:

"The new report (Report 49) from the Imperial College London COVID-19 response team estimates that the risk of reinfection with the Omicron variant is 5.4 times greater than that of the Delta variant."

That's their first "claim". It's very clear, and unambiguous.

From that, they say:

" This implies that the protection against reinfection by Omicron afforded by past infection may be as low as 19%."

You and @JJJ disagree with that claim - fine.

I've simply and repeatedly asked you and @JJJ for any evidence to support Dr John Campbell's claims about Omicron giving large scale immunity, which was what @JJJ quoted me objecting to, and you've completely ignored that and given none.

Not just any studies, but any evidence at all.  Any expert opinion to support that conclusion, such as this:

https://www.businessinsider.com/omicron-may-build-superimmunity-for-future-coronavirus-variants-2022-1

or this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/07/omicron-silver-lining-boost-immunity/

(but they both have massive caveats).

I'm happy to give any number that contradict that view, not just from Imperial College based on their estimate from their study, but many others, which include a number of other studies:

https://people.com/health/people-who-had-omicron-arent-necessarily-immune-from-covid-heres-why-they-should-stay-cautious/

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/01/omicron-wave-immunity/621324/

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/how-omicron-highlights-fading-hope-herd-immunity-covid-2022-01-20/

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/omicron-covid-19-immunity-study-7732515/

In that case this seems to be about nothing more than whether you support @JJJ's view or mine, or want to be "positive" or "negative", which I find a little bizarre.

To me, this is simply about whether you support John Campbell's view that it's all over bar the shouting, which I suppose is being "positive", or the view of the experts based on all the recent evidence which contradicts that so I suppose has to be "negative".

Well, John Campbell, who you're indirectly backing, has a doctorate in teaching, not medicine, but he claims on LinkedIn to be 'practising part time as a doctor' - deceptive at best, as it's generally accepted that only medical doctors practice; he's made totally inaccurate and untrue claims about Ivermectin use in Japan; he's misquoted a paper saying that mRNA vaccines could cause heart problems, saying it could be "incredibly significant" although the publishers themselves "expressed concern" about it's accuracy; he's massively mis-represented UK ONS statistics about Covid deaths, claiming the ONS said that Covid deaths were a tenth of the number given, which the ONS later said was "both factually incorrect and highly misleading”.

He's "easily understandable" as one poster described him here, and good at "disentangling the statistics" to support his views, but what he says is "both factually incorrect and highly misleading”.

... but you're supporting him because it's being "positive" ...

.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/28/ons-debunks-spurious-covid-deaths-claim-shared-by-david-davis

 

Are you attempting a drowning by putting up a sheet of words? I'm a bit wordy but I've never had to impose scrolling to enable people to read my argument (disclaimer: perhaps on very small screens).

PS: I'm not supporting anyone. I don't have a clue who JJJ is or Stonker are, and I don't care what their thoughts are like and how well they mesh with mine overall. For me, (dis)agreeing with someone is not about the person but about what they write on the occasion, i.e. content over personality. I could very well agree with your next post. Don't be offended if that happens.

 

[JJJ]

3 hours ago, Chatogaster said:

The study shows that a past Delta (*) infection protects better against (another) Delta infection than it does against an Omicron infection. *) There's a slight simplification in there, but based on the prevalence of Delta at the time I think I'm allowed to summarize the essence like this.

The study does not make a single claim about how a past Omicron infection protects against another Omicron infection. It's plain to see that would be impossible right now and that it will take about 2 months before such studies become viable.

So if I see somebody (JJJ) calmly and rationally objecting to your claim that "An Omicron infection only gives 19% [protection] even against an Omicron infection.", and another person (you) getting agitated about that and even implying stupidity on the side of the objector, I can either be positive towards JJJ, negative against you, or ignore it altogether. I chose positivity.

There’s not much more to say than already said here.

But the study says nothing about the likelihood of omicron reinfection after an omicron infection. I try not to speak in absolutes but think most others following would reach the same conclusion.

As for others who don’t, there’s something else blocking that conclusion and I can’t do anything about that.

As for @Stonker citing popular press that maybe omicron doesn’t confer immunity is just too far. Of course Johns Hopkins and others have shown that immunity from infection (earlier variants) is as good if not better than vaccination.  

It turns out prior infection and vaccination immunity weren’t great for a new omicron infection.  

[Stonker]

24 minutes ago, JJJ said:

But the study says nothing about the likelihood of omicron reinfection after an omicron infection

Well, that's your interpretation of it.

24 minutes ago, JJJ said:

I try not to speak in absolutes but think most others following would reach the same conclusion

"Most others" except ALL of the media reports on the study, some of which I've linked to, who've all reached the opposite conclusion!

24 minutes ago, JJJ said:

As for @Stonker citing popular press that maybe omicron doesn’t confer immunity is just too far.

"too far" ?

All the "popular press" I've linked to either quote experts or cite specific, in depth studies such as in India and the US, or both.

You've cited ... umm ... no-one!

24 minutes ago, JJJ said:

Of course Johns Hopkins and others have shown that immunity from infection (earlier variants) is as good if not better than vaccination.  

Yes, "of course" they have because it was / is the case with "(earlier variants)" - unfortunately the evidence so far is that it's not the case with Omicron, however much we'd all like it to be and however much those like John Campbell say that it is, without a shred of evidence to support it.

[Chatogaster]

19 hours ago, JJJ said:

There’s not much more to say than already said here [...]

 

19 hours ago, Stonker said:

Well, that's your interpretation of it [...]

 

  

19 hours ago, Stonker said:

Well, that's your interpretation of it.

"Most others" except ALL of the media reports on the study, some of which I've linked to, who've all reached the opposite conclusion!

"too far" ?

All the "popular press" I've linked to either quote experts or cite specific, in depth studies such as in India and the US, or both.

You've cited ... umm ... no-one!

Yes, "of course" they have because it was / is the case with "(earlier variants)" - unfortunately the evidence so far is that it's not the case with Omicron, however much we'd all like it to be and however much those like John Campbell say that it is, without a shred of evidence to support it.

I just read some of your (Stonker's) replies elsewhere and reversed my decision to abandon this thread. This is my last attempt at indirectly adjusting behavior and explaining the worth of etiquette by means of a concrete, rational argument within the context of this thread (feel free to skip to the last paragraph if there are too many words in-between here and there):

A major part of the immune system is to "remember and then recognize".

That implies that the less similar two variants are, the less likely it is that an infection by one reduces (the probability of) re-infection by the other. Omicron is a highly mutated variant and based on that alone, efficacy of Delta preventing Omicron re-infections must be lower than Delta preventing Delta-re-infections. 

The same argument can be phrased equivalently as: the more similar two variants are, the more likely it is that infection by one reduces re-infection by the other. The ultimate similarity occurs when the two variants are actually the same, so an Omicron-infection must be better than a Delta-infection at preventing an Omicron-re-infection.

Assuming that the study is correct:

• If SAME-SAME is indeed better than SAME-DIFFERENT, your estimate of 19% is wrong and a lower bound at best.
• If SAME-SAME is not significantly better than SAME-DIFFERENT (in this case), your estimate of 19% is plausible.

You're either guessing that SAME vs DIFFERENT doesn't matter or such considerations may simply not have occurred to you. Either way, your reasoning about the efficacy Omicron and resulting proclamation that we can't do better than 19% with the information available is flawed. That's OK (I don't expect you to be an expert in any, let alone all fields, and neither am I). 

As indirect as it may be, my key message here is: don't by default try to bulldoze over opinions that are not your own. I've had 2-3 occasions on this forum where I spent some time to listening to what was said despite "knowing better upfront", and I ended up learning something. You might too. 

 

[nobusinessofurs]

On 2/5/2022 at 11:44 AM, Poolie said:

OOOOOHHHH! Save us from errrr......mild covid! What are we to do?

Keep the virus in China where it came from.

[Poolie]

14 minutes ago, nobusinessofurs said:

Keep the virus in China where it came from.

Keep fishing mate. Good luck.

[LoongFred]

17 hours ago, Poolie said:

Keep fishing mate. Good luck.

Exactly, some people need to quit fishing. They aren't biting.

[Artemis080]

On 2/5/2022 at 11:44 AM, Poolie said:

OOOOOHHHH! Save us from errrr......mild covid! What are we to do?

Yes, it's mild, but's also doing a good job of killing people because of the sheer scale of it. We now have vaccines and many vulnerable lost their lives in the first wave, and it's killing more than the first wave of Alpha in the US. 

[Poolie]

I was more focused on Thailand.