Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t1eo6q$n80$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:50 on Wed, 23 Mar
>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>> On 23/03/2022 08:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <t1elej$372$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:23:47 on Wed, 23 Mar
>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 23/03/2022 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t1crcs$4gd$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:00 on Tue, 22 Mar
>>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 22/03/2022 13:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <190dku9sht17s$.dlg@example1357.net>, at 12:06:18 on
>>>>>>>> Tue,  22  Mar 2022, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 07:13:01 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mainly because it's the only such disease where in plenty of
>>>>>>>>>> areas 10%
>>>>>>>>>> of the population have it during any one week (it's 11% here). Also
>>>>>>>>>> apparently the second most infectious one, behind measles.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Strange that we've eliminated smallpox, ebola, even measles to some
>>>>>>>>> extent, but given up on covid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  It takes a generation (or more) to eradicate a disease. And then
>>>>>>>> you  can  only do the ones which aren't mutating in real time.
>>>>>>>>  There was a TV commercial last night saying that Covid
>>>>>>>> vaccinations  <quote> like all others wear off so need to be boosted.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>  That'll be news to people given HPV which I think they've now
>>>>>>>> decided is  a once-a-lifetime jab.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quite a few vaccines need topping up, IIRC yellow fever only lasts
>>>>>>> 7 years. Cut yourself on a rusty nail and you'll get a tetanus
>>>>>>> booster and so on.
>>>>
>>>>>>  Yes, not every traditional vaccine lasts a lifetime (or half a
>>>>>> lifetime), but most last more than six months.
>>>>>
>>>>> The operative word being "most".
>>
>>>> Yes, but apart from Covid which other ones last only six months? The
>>>> TV adverts are trying to give the impression that "most"
>>>> traditionally only last six months, which is why we need to accept
>>>> the need to "also" get re-jabbed for Covid every six months.
>>>
>>> I got my booster nearly five months ago and it seems I wont be getting
>>> another until "autumn" which will make it ten months.
>>
>> The publicity I've seen recently for summer-boosters (didn't the booking
>> site open yesterday or the day before) was claiming six months. Of
>> course that's not necessarily the medically optimal interval, but they
>> have logistics to consider as well.
>>
>> I haven't tried to book a 4th jab (it would be "due" in about six weeks
>> time).
>
> Entry to some countries is dependent on having had a booster within the
> previous 270 days, which doesn't conveniently fit a programme of annual
> autumn boosters.
>

I thought that the 'within 270 day' requirement applied to the second jab?
I think the third (booster) shot is currently regarded as having an
unlimited validity, but that may of course change.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t1eo6q$n80$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:50 on Wed, 23 Mar
>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>> On 23/03/2022 08:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <t1elej$372$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:23:47 on Wed, 23 Mar
>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 23/03/2022 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <t1crcs$4gd$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:00 on Tue, 22 Mar
>>>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 22/03/2022 13:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <190dku9sht17s$.dlg@example1357.net>, at 12:06:18 on
>>>>>>>>> Tue,  22  Mar 2022, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 07:13:01 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mainly because it's the only such disease where in plenty of
>>>>>>>>>>> areas 10%
>>>>>>>>>>> of the population have it during any one week (it's 11% here). Also
>>>>>>>>>>> apparently the second most infectious one, behind measles.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Strange that we've eliminated smallpox, ebola, even measles to some
>>>>>>>>>> extent, but given up on covid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  It takes a generation (or more) to eradicate a disease. And then
>>>>>>>>> you  can  only do the ones which aren't mutating in real time.
>>>>>>>>>  There was a TV commercial last night saying that Covid
>>>>>>>>> vaccinations  <quote> like all others wear off so need to be boosted.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  That'll be news to people given HPV which I think they've now
>>>>>>>>> decided is  a once-a-lifetime jab.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quite a few vaccines need topping up, IIRC yellow fever only lasts
>>>>>>>> 7 years. Cut yourself on a rusty nail and you'll get a tetanus
>>>>>>>> booster and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Yes, not every traditional vaccine lasts a lifetime (or half a
>>>>>>> lifetime), but most last more than six months.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The operative word being "most".
>>>
>>>>> Yes, but apart from Covid which other ones last only six months? The
>>>>> TV adverts are trying to give the impression that "most"
>>>>> traditionally only last six months, which is why we need to accept
>>>>> the need to "also" get re-jabbed for Covid every six months.
>>>>
>>>> I got my booster nearly five months ago and it seems I wont be getting
>>>> another until "autumn" which will make it ten months.
>>>
>>> The publicity I've seen recently for summer-boosters (didn't the booking
>>> site open yesterday or the day before) was claiming six months. Of
>>> course that's not necessarily the medically optimal interval, but they
>>> have logistics to consider as well.
>>>
>>> I haven't tried to book a 4th jab (it would be "due" in about six weeks
>>> time).
>>
>> Entry to some countries is dependent on having had a booster within the
>> previous 270 days, which doesn't conveniently fit a programme of annual
>> autumn boosters.
>>
>
> I thought that the 'within 270 day' requirement applied to the second jab?
> I think the third (booster) shot is currently regarded as having an
> unlimited validity, but that may of course change.
>
>

Aha yea, you're right, I'd either misread or misunderstood:

"At least 14 days must have passed since being fully vaccinated (with both
doses of a 2-dose vaccine or one dose of a single-dose vaccine) before
arrival in Spain. Your date(s) of vaccination must be specified and your
final dose must have been administered within 270 days prior to travel to
Spain. If you completed your vaccination (with both doses of a 2-dose
vaccine or one dose of a single-dose vaccine) more than 270 days prior to
travel to Spain, you must be able to show proof of having received a
booster jab. There is no requirement for 14 days to have passed between
receiving your booster jab and entering Spain. Booster jabs can be
administered at any time prior to travel to Spain."

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:16:16 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>And (in England)
>Immunosuppressed over 12y old.
>Residents of care homes.

The second group will I think be the same as those who received a
ready to go person specific PCR test around Christmas. Mine was
actually delivered by Royal Mail on Boxing Day. Fortunately mine is
still unused and I'm hopeful that my ffp3 mask use will keep it that
way and prove Recliner wrong! If Recliner is right and it's only a
matter of time then at least I know the treatments available now give
me a fighting chance unlike 2 years ago!

Nigel Emery <nigele3@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:16:16 +0000, Charles Ellson
> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> And (in England)
>> Immunosuppressed over 12y old.
>> Residents of care homes.
>
> The second group will I think be the same as those who received a
> ready to go person specific PCR test around Christmas. Mine was
> actually delivered by Royal Mail on Boxing Day. Fortunately mine is
> still unused and I'm hopeful that my ffp3 mask use will keep it that
> way and prove Recliner wrong! If Recliner is right and it's only a
> matter of time then at least I know the treatments available now give
> me a fighting chance unlike 2 years ago!
>

Not only are good treatments available now, but Omicron is a great deal
milder than the wild or Alpha variants. So the picture is much more
positive now than two years ago, whether or not you have been vaccinated.

On 22/03/2022 12:06, mechanic wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 07:13:01 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> Mainly because it's the only such disease where in plenty of areas 10%
>> of the population have it during any one week (it's 11% here). Also
>> apparently the second most infectious one, behind measles.
>
> Strange that we've eliminated smallpox, ebola, even measles to some
> extent, but given up on covid.

We can also easily effectively treat some cancers in some cases, yet we
have not found a cure for the common cold.

In message <m27m3hha0iq47hel844e502nsr2ljj5hsg@4ax.com>, at 13:11:30 on
Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 12:40:12 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <t1eo6q$n80$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:50 on Wed, 23 Mar
>>2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>On 23/03/2022 08:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <t1elej$372$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:23:47 on Wed, 23 Mar
>>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 23/03/2022 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t1crcs$4gd$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:00 on Tue, 22 Mar
>>>>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 22/03/2022 13:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <190dku9sht17s$.dlg@example1357.net>, at 12:06:18 on
>>>>>>>>Tue,  22  Mar 2022, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 07:13:01 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mainly because it's the only such disease where in plenty of
>>>>>>>>>>areas 10%
>>>>>>>>>> of the population have it during any one week (it's 11% here). Also
>>>>>>>>>> apparently the second most infectious one, behind measles.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Strange that we've eliminated smallpox, ebola, even measles to some
>>>>>>>>> extent, but given up on covid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  It takes a generation (or more) to eradicate a disease. And then
>>>>>>>>you  can  only do the ones which aren't mutating in real time.
>>>>>>>>  There was a TV commercial last night saying that Covid
>>>>>>>>vaccinations  <quote> like all others wear off so need to be boosted.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>  That'll be news to people given HPV which I think they've now
>>>>>>>>decided is  a once-a-lifetime jab.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quite a few vaccines need topping up, IIRC yellow fever only lasts
>>>>>>>7 years. Cut yourself on a rusty nail and you'll get a tetanus
>>>>>>>booster and so on.
>>>>
>>>>>>  Yes, not every traditional vaccine lasts a lifetime (or half a
>>>>>>lifetime), but most last more than six months.
>>>>>
>>>>> The operative word being "most".
>>
>>>> Yes, but apart from Covid which other ones last only six months? The
>>>>TV adverts are trying to give the impression that "most"
>>>>traditionally only last six months, which is why we need to accept
>>>>the need to "also" get re-jabbed for Covid every six months.
>>>
>>>I got my booster nearly five months ago and it seems I wont be getting
>>>another until "autumn" which will make it ten months.
>>
>>The publicity I've seen recently for summer-boosters (didn't the booking
>>site open yesterday or the day before) was claiming six months. Of
>>course that's not necessarily the medically optimal interval, but they
>>have logistics to consider as well.
>>
>>I haven't tried to book a 4th jab (it would be "due" in about six weeks
>>time).
>
>You won't be able to book a booster shot yet, as you're not eligible.
>You'll have to wait till the autumn.

Actually, I would be eligible. It's not just the patient's age.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t1g8cj$2a9$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:53:08 on Wed, 23 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>> The publicity I've seen recently for summer-boosters (didn't the booking
>>> site open yesterday or the day before) was claiming six months. Of
>>> course that's not necessarily the medically optimal interval, but they
>>> have logistics to consider as well.
>>>
>>> I haven't tried to book a 4th jab (it would be "due" in about six weeks
>>> time).
>>
>> Entry to some countries is dependent on having had a booster within the
>> previous 270 days, which doesn't conveniently fit a programme of annual
>> autumn boosters.
>
>I thought that the 'within 270 day' requirement applied to the second jab?
>I think the third (booster) shot is currently regarded as having an
>unlimited validity, but that may of course change.

Two (at least) of my Facebook friends are quadruple-jabbed (since
January).
--
Roland Perry

In message <qd6m3h1l4sdarlf08u1ol0unt5su6fn7ba@4ax.com>, at 13:05:35 on
Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 12:44:12 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <t1esuh$olo$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:31:45 on Wed, 23 Mar
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>On 23/03/2022 09:54, Certes wrote:
>>>> On 23/03/2022 08:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <t1elej$372$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:23:47 on Wed, 23 Mar
>>>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 23/03/2022 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <t1crcs$4gd$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:00 on Tue, 22
>>>>>>>Mar 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 22/03/2022 13:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <190dku9sht17s$.dlg@example1357.net>, at 12:06:18 on
>>>>>>>>>Tue,  22  Mar 2022, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 07:13:01 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mainly because it's the only such disease where in plenty of
>>>>>>>>>>>areas 10%
>>>>>>>>>>> of the population have it during any one week (it's 11% here). Also
>>>>>>>>>>> apparently the second most infectious one, behind measles.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Strange that we've eliminated smallpox, ebola, even measles to some
>>>>>>>>>> extent, but given up on covid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  It takes a generation (or more) to eradicate a disease. And
>>>>>>>>>then you  can  only do the ones which aren't mutating in real time.
>>>>>>>>>  There was a TV commercial last night saying that Covid
>>>>>>>>>vaccinations  <quote> like all others wear off so need to be boosted.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  That'll be news to people given HPV which I think they've now
>>>>>>>>>decided is  a once-a-lifetime jab.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quite a few vaccines need topping up, IIRC yellow fever only
>>>>>>>>lasts 7 years. Cut yourself on a rusty nail and you'll get a
>>>>>>>>tetanus booster and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Yes, not every traditional vaccine lasts a lifetime (or half a
>>>>>>>lifetime), but most last more than six months.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The operative word being "most".
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but apart from Covid which other ones last only six months? The
>>>>>TV adverts are trying to give the impression that "most"
>>>>>traditionally only last six months, which is why we need to accept
>>>>>the need to "also" get re-jabbed for Covid every six months.
>>>> Flu jabs seem to require annual renewal.  That's partly because
>>>>variants
>>>> emerge quickly but probably indicates time-limited effectiveness:
>>>> perhaps as short as six months, as immunity is less important in summer.
>>>> Other than its severity, COVID seems to have more in common with colds
>>>> and flu than with the more serious diseases.
>>>
>>>The Flu annual cycle is because they have to try and predict which
>>>variant is likely to be the one going round this year. It's quite
>>>possible that Covid could end up in a similar position.
>>
>>That doesn't quite work, because the flu variants they are immunising
>>against are already in circulation, they just try to predict which might
>>be in the ascendancy six months later.
>>
>>Covid variants are all brand new.
>
>No, they aren't brand new. They evolve from existing successful
>variants, so we do have clues about what might come
>next.

Timelines again. They are "brand new" compared to the flu viruses which
are selected to be jabbed against each Autumn. And in any event Omicron
for example is still "new" in the timescale of creating, testing and
rolling out a new vaccine.

See below for the dates the Omicrons were first discovered.

>> Unless anyone thinks that Alpha (or
>>whatever) will be making a comeback next year.
>
>No, but next winter's dominant variant is very likely to be a
>descendant of the current Omicron BA.2 sub-variant. So, a
>vaccine designed to combat BA.2 is likely to be much more effective
>than one designed to combat Alpha.

I'm confident that prediction is as unfounded as others of yours. Like
"there won't be a third wave". It doesn't mean there isn't a slim
possibility it'll be true, but you are coming across as over-confident.

>"Reinfection with BA.2 following infection with BA.1 has been
>documented, however, initial data from population-level
>reinfection studies suggest that infection with BA.1 provides strong
>protection against reinfection with BA.2, at least
>for the limited period for which data are available."
>
><https://www.who.int/news/item/22-02-2022-statement-on-omicron-sublineage-ba.2>

More data on Covid lineages at:

https://cov-lineages.org/lineage_list.html

BA.1 mid Sept 2021
BA.2 mid Nov 2021
BA.3 end Nov 2021, also an Omicron; you can read the rest for yourself.

--
Roland Perry

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 22/03/2022 12:06, mechanic wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 07:13:01 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>> Mainly because it's the only such disease where in plenty of areas 10%
>>> of the population have it during any one week (it's 11% here). Also
>>> apparently the second most infectious one, behind measles.
>>
>> Strange that we've eliminated smallpox, ebola, even measles to some
>> extent, but given up on covid.
>
> We can also easily effectively treat some cancers in some cases, yet we
> have not found a cure for the common cold.
>

Well we might get closer to preventing *some* of the common cold viruses.
Like cancers, the cold isn’t just one disease but just a catch all term. I
think the huge advance in deploying the newish vaccine technologies for
covid can now be applied to these viruses.

In message <qxju1wdic531.dlg@example1357.net>, at 16:16:48 on Wed, 23
Mar 2022, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> remarked:
>On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:45:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>>>
>>>> Expecting others to go round wearing non FFP3 masks to save
>>>> you is basically just like relying on a lucky rabbit‚s foot.
>>>
>>> If that's the situation, why were people ever told to wear masks?
>>>
>> Because it slows the rate of infection a bit, and if you are trying to stop
>> your hospitals from being overwhelmed it is helpful. What they won‚t do is
>> stop you from ultimately getting infected, just delaying it. As one senior
>> medic put it (I forget which), there are two groups in the population,
>> those who have had omicron and those who are going to get it.
>
>https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/3/11/two-years-of-covid-the-batt
>le-to-accept-airborne-transmission

While I agree that aerosols are the main transmission method, does any
of that rather rambling article suggest that droplets might not *also*
be a method. The whole supermarket_trolley/cash/etc scenario depended on
the theory that people sneezing/coughing (and not merely breathing)
might infect surfaces, and that the virus had a lifetime long enough for
someone to be able to transfer it to mucus membranes such as eyes.

One of the side effects of the Covid outbreak is that I have conditioned
myself to never touch my eyes, however much they are irritated.

As for coughing etc, there was a late middle-aged lady in the Costa at
Tesco this morning coughing and spluttering over her snack, and anything
else literally within spitting distance. I would not approach her closer
than 6ft under any circumstances, but being involuntarily cooped up on a
train with them, what can one do? Apart from wearing one's own mask, of
course.
--
Roland Perry

On 24/03/2022 10:52, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <qxju1wdic531.dlg@example1357.net>, at 16:16:48 on Wed, 23
> Mar 2022, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> remarked:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:45:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> Expecting others to go round wearing non FFP3 masks to save
>>>>> you is basically just like relying on a lucky rabbit‚s foot.
>>>>
>>>> If that's the situation, why were people ever told to wear masks?
>>>>
>>> Because it slows the rate of infection a bit, and if you are trying
>>> to stop
>>> your hospitals from being overwhelmed it is helpful. What they won‚t
>>> do is
>>> stop you from ultimately getting infected, just delaying it. As one
>>> senior
>>> medic put it (I forget which), there are two groups in the population,
>>> those who have had omicron and those who are going to get it.
>>
>> https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/3/11/two-years-of-covid-the-batt
>> le-to-accept-airborne-transmission
>
> While I agree that aerosols are the main transmission method, does any
> of that rather rambling article suggest that droplets might not *also*
> be a method. The whole supermarket_trolley/cash/etc scenario depended on
> the theory that people sneezing/coughing (and not merely breathing)
> might infect surfaces, and that the virus had a lifetime long enough for
> someone to be able to transfer it to mucus membranes such as eyes.
>
> One of the side effects of the Covid outbreak is that I have conditioned
> myself to never touch my eyes, however much they are irritated.
>
> As for coughing etc, there was a late middle-aged lady in the Costa at
> Tesco this morning coughing and spluttering over her snack, and anything
> else literally within spitting distance. I would not approach her closer
> than 6ft under any circumstances, but being involuntarily cooped up on a
> train with them, what can one do? Apart from wearing one's own mask, of
> course.

Also, of course, mask wearing helps reduce the transmission of other
infectious respiratory ailments which have been significantly reduced in
the last couple of years with the concomitant reduction in
hospitalisations as a result.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <7q0n3ht4sja76npbq36jqhpg0410trdr0h@4ax.com>, at 20:35:43 on
Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:05:52 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <t1eoci$p61$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:13:53 on Wed, 23 Mar
>>2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>
>>>>> If you are susceptible for whatever reason you need to take *your
>>>>>own* precautions, wearing proper FFP3 masks and probably reducing
>>>>>your contact with others.
>>
>>>What about those who cannot wear FFP3 masks?
>>
>>It's not clear to me who that set comprises. In the early days there
>>were some issues with FFP2 masks popping off people's ears all the time,
>>but now you can get a gadget that pulls the strings round the back of
>>you head instead.
>>
>The usual reasons for a poor FFP3 fit are facial hair (see also
>firemen and breathing apparatus)

I don't have any of that.

>or your head/face not matching the shape of the mask. In the latter
>case that can vary between different makes of mask so simply cured by
>using a supply of the right ones.

The FPP3 ones I have are a noticeably different design to the "pelican
beak" FPP2 which are so popular. But even the latter can be made to fit
some people better with the gadget I mentioned.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t1g6oc$m2p$2@dont-email.me>, at 22:25:16 on Wed, 23 Mar
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>>>>> If you are susceptible for whatever reason you need to take *your
>>>>> own* precautions, wearing proper FFP3 masks and probably reducing
>>>>> your contact with others.
>>
>>> What about those who cannot wear FFP3 masks?
>>
>> It's not clear to me who that set comprises. In the early days there
>> were some issues with FFP2 masks popping off people's ears all the time,
>> but now you can get a gadget that pulls the strings round the back of
>> you head instead.
>
>One which I read in a comment on FB today was autistic people who are
>hypersensitive to things touching their face.

Autistic people who are that sensitive will have many much greater
issues to deal with wrt Covid (and I'm not just saying that, a close
friend's day job is respite carer for autistic children whose parents
can no longer cope with them 24x7).
--
Roland Perry

In message <t1f191$sv6$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:45:37 on Wed, 23 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t1eutv$aa9$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:05:35 on Wed, 23 Mar
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 23/03/2022 10:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/03/2022 10:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Masks stop droplets, which is almost irrelevant for Covid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think aerosols are?
>>>>>
>>>>> Covid particles are tiny, and airborne. They can travel long
>>>>>distances, not
>>>>> just 1-2m. That was soon discovered in the early cases, in restaurants,
>>>>> churches and planes. But the out-of-date advice wasn't revised.
>>>>
>>>> And aerosols help them travel further.
>>>
>>> I think you're confusing aerosols and droplets. The WHO originally thought
>>> that Covid was transmitted by droplets, like flu, not aerosols. That's what
>>> all the early advice was based on, but it was wrong:
>>> https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1030
>>>
>>> Also, all that cleaning of supermarket trolley handles, glove wearing
>>> and/or frequent hand-sanitising did almost nothing to stop the spread of
>>> Covid. In the early days, I wore face shields, but we now know that was
>>> pretty pointless, too.
>>
>> If by face shields you mean like the ones welders wear, it was obvious
>> from the start they were just security theatre.
>
>Perhaps, but they were permitted and accepted as face coverings where they
>were mandatory. They were particularly popular among supermarket staff.

I first saw them at scale in a pub which had just reopened with
stringent Covid precautions. Tables separated, pre-booked only, one-way
system, one person in toilets at a time, table service only etc. It was
not at all clear what protection they gave either the waitresses or
customers.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t1f191$sv6$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:45:37 on Wed, 23 Mar
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t1eutv$aa9$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:05:35 on Wed, 23 Mar
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 23/03/2022 10:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/03/2022 10:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Masks stop droplets, which is almost irrelevant for Covid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think aerosols are?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Covid particles are tiny, and airborne. They can travel long
>>>>>> distances, not
>>>>>> just 1-2m. That was soon discovered in the early cases, in restaurants,
>>>>>> churches and planes. But the out-of-date advice wasn't revised.
>>>>>
>>>>> And aerosols help them travel further.
>>>>
>>>> I think you're confusing aerosols and droplets. The WHO originally thought
>>>> that Covid was transmitted by droplets, like flu, not aerosols. That's what
>>>> all the early advice was based on, but it was wrong:
>>>> https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1030
>>>>
>>>> Also, all that cleaning of supermarket trolley handles, glove wearing
>>>> and/or frequent hand-sanitising did almost nothing to stop the spread of
>>>> Covid. In the early days, I wore face shields, but we now know that was
>>>> pretty pointless, too.
>>>
>>> If by face shields you mean like the ones welders wear, it was obvious
>>> from the start they were just security theatre.
>>
>> Perhaps, but they were permitted and accepted as face coverings where they
>> were mandatory. They were particularly popular among supermarket staff.
>
> I first saw them at scale in a pub which had just reopened with
> stringent Covid precautions. Tables separated, pre-booked only, one-way
> system, one person in toilets at a time, table service only etc. It was
> not at all clear what protection they gave either the waitresses or
> customers.

They provide reasonably good protection against droplets, which were
initially thought to be the main transmission method, but almost none
against airborne transmission, which was later found to be the main
transmission method.

Their main advantage, of course, is that they're much more comfortable to
be worn for extended periods, which would apply to waiters and supermarket
staff.

On 24/03/2022 11:28, Recliner wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t1f191$sv6$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:45:37 on Wed, 23 Mar
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t1eutv$aa9$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:05:35 on Wed, 23 Mar
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/03/2022 10:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23/03/2022 10:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Masks stop droplets, which is almost irrelevant for Covid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you think aerosols are?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Covid particles are tiny, and airborne. They can travel long
>>>>>>> distances, not
>>>>>>> just 1-2m. That was soon discovered in the early cases, in restaurants,
>>>>>>> churches and planes. But the out-of-date advice wasn't revised.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And aerosols help them travel further.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you're confusing aerosols and droplets. The WHO originally thought
>>>>> that Covid was transmitted by droplets, like flu, not aerosols. That's what
>>>>> all the early advice was based on, but it was wrong:
>>>>> https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1030
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, all that cleaning of supermarket trolley handles, glove wearing
>>>>> and/or frequent hand-sanitising did almost nothing to stop the spread of
>>>>> Covid. In the early days, I wore face shields, but we now know that was
>>>>> pretty pointless, too.
>>>>
>>>> If by face shields you mean like the ones welders wear, it was obvious
>>>> from the start they were just security theatre.
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but they were permitted and accepted as face coverings where they
>>> were mandatory. They were particularly popular among supermarket staff.
>>
>> I first saw them at scale in a pub which had just reopened with
>> stringent Covid precautions. Tables separated, pre-booked only, one-way
>> system, one person in toilets at a time, table service only etc. It was
>> not at all clear what protection they gave either the waitresses or
>> customers.
>
> They provide reasonably good protection against droplets, which were
> initially thought to be the main transmission method, but almost none
> against airborne transmission, which was later found to be the main
> transmission method.
>

Droplets are a form of airborne transmission.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 06:33:26 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <qd6m3h1l4sdarlf08u1ol0unt5su6fn7ba@4ax.com>, at 13:05:35 on
>Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 12:44:12 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <t1esuh$olo$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:31:45 on Wed, 23 Mar
>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>On 23/03/2022 09:54, Certes wrote:
>>>>> On 23/03/2022 08:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t1elej$372$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:23:47 on Wed, 23 Mar
>>>>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 23/03/2022 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <t1crcs$4gd$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:00 on Tue, 22
>>>>>>>>Mar 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On 22/03/2022 13:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <190dku9sht17s$.dlg@example1357.net>, at 12:06:18 on
>>>>>>>>>>Tue,  22  Mar 2022, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 07:13:01 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mainly because it's the only such disease where in plenty of
>>>>>>>>>>>>areas 10%
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the population have it during any one week (it's 11% here). Also
>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently the second most infectious one, behind measles.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Strange that we've eliminated smallpox, ebola, even measles to some
>>>>>>>>>>> extent, but given up on covid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  It takes a generation (or more) to eradicate a disease. And
>>>>>>>>>>then you  can  only do the ones which aren't mutating in real time.
>>>>>>>>>>  There was a TV commercial last night saying that Covid
>>>>>>>>>>vaccinations  <quote> like all others wear off so need to be boosted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  That'll be news to people given HPV which I think they've now
>>>>>>>>>>decided is  a once-a-lifetime jab.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Quite a few vaccines need topping up, IIRC yellow fever only
>>>>>>>>>lasts 7 years. Cut yourself on a rusty nail and you'll get a
>>>>>>>>>tetanus booster and so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Yes, not every traditional vaccine lasts a lifetime (or half a
>>>>>>>>lifetime), but most last more than six months.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The operative word being "most".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but apart from Covid which other ones last only six months? The
>>>>>>TV adverts are trying to give the impression that "most"
>>>>>>traditionally only last six months, which is why we need to accept
>>>>>>the need to "also" get re-jabbed for Covid every six months.
>>>>> Flu jabs seem to require annual renewal.  That's partly because
>>>>>variants
>>>>> emerge quickly but probably indicates time-limited effectiveness:
>>>>> perhaps as short as six months, as immunity is less important in summer.
>>>>> Other than its severity, COVID seems to have more in common with colds
>>>>> and flu than with the more serious diseases.
>>>>
>>>>The Flu annual cycle is because they have to try and predict which
>>>>variant is likely to be the one going round this year. It's quite
>>>>possible that Covid could end up in a similar position.
>>>
>>>That doesn't quite work, because the flu variants they are immunising
>>>against are already in circulation, they just try to predict which might
>>>be in the ascendancy six months later.
>>>
>>>Covid variants are all brand new.
>>
>>No, they aren't brand new. They evolve from existing successful
>>variants, so we do have clues about what might come
>>next.
>
>Timelines again. They are "brand new" compared to the flu viruses which
>are selected to be jabbed against each Autumn. And in any event Omicron
>for example is still "new" in the timescale of creating, testing and
>rolling out a new vaccine.
>
>See below for the dates the Omicrons were first discovered.
>
>>> Unless anyone thinks that Alpha (or
>>>whatever) will be making a comeback next year.
>>
>>No, but next winter's dominant variant is very likely to be a
>>descendant of the current Omicron BA.2 sub-variant. So, a
>>vaccine designed to combat BA.2 is likely to be much more effective
>>than one designed to combat Alpha.
>
>I'm confident that prediction is as unfounded as others of yours. Like
>"there won't be a third wave". It doesn't mean there isn't a slim
>possibility it'll be true, but you are coming across as over-confident.
>
>>"Reinfection with BA.2 following infection with BA.1 has been
>>documented, however, initial data from population-level
>>reinfection studies suggest that infection with BA.1 provides strong
>>protection against reinfection with BA.2, at least
>>for the limited period for which data are available."
>>
>><https://www.who.int/news/item/22-02-2022-statement-on-omicron-sublineage-ba.2>
>
>More data on Covid lineages at:
>
>https://cov-lineages.org/lineage_list.html
>
>BA.1 mid Sept 2021
>BA.2 mid Nov 2021
>BA.3 end Nov 2021, also an Omicron; you can read the rest for yourself.

The point is that these are close cousins, and prior infection with one provides good protection against its cousins.
It's likely that the same will be true of vaccines, so an Omicron-focused vaccine will probably be more effective now
than the original formulations, even if the virus has evolved further by the autumn, which is likely.

On 24/03/2022 13:03, Recliner wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 06:33:26 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <qd6m3h1l4sdarlf08u1ol0unt5su6fn7ba@4ax.com>, at 13:05:35 on
>> Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 12:44:12 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <t1esuh$olo$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:31:45 on Wed, 23 Mar
>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 23/03/2022 09:54, Certes wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/03/2022 08:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <t1elej$372$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:23:47 on Wed, 23 Mar
>>>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 23/03/2022 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <t1crcs$4gd$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:00 on Tue, 22
>>>>>>>>> Mar 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On 22/03/2022 13:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <190dku9sht17s$.dlg@example1357.net>, at 12:06:18 on
>>>>>>>>>>> Tue,  22  Mar 2022, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 07:13:01 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mainly because it's the only such disease where in plenty of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas 10%
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the population have it during any one week (it's 11% here). Also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently the second most infectious one, behind measles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Strange that we've eliminated smallpox, ebola, even measles to some
>>>>>>>>>>>> extent, but given up on covid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  It takes a generation (or more) to eradicate a disease. And
>>>>>>>>>>> then you  can  only do the ones which aren't mutating in real time.
>>>>>>>>>>>  There was a TV commercial last night saying that Covid
>>>>>>>>>>> vaccinations  <quote> like all others wear off so need to be boosted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  That'll be news to people given HPV which I think they've now
>>>>>>>>>>> decided is  a once-a-lifetime jab.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Quite a few vaccines need topping up, IIRC yellow fever only
>>>>>>>>>> lasts 7 years. Cut yourself on a rusty nail and you'll get a
>>>>>>>>>> tetanus booster and so on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Yes, not every traditional vaccine lasts a lifetime (or half a
>>>>>>>>> lifetime), but most last more than six months.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The operative word being "most".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but apart from Covid which other ones last only six months? The
>>>>>>> TV adverts are trying to give the impression that "most"
>>>>>>> traditionally only last six months, which is why we need to accept
>>>>>>> the need to "also" get re-jabbed for Covid every six months.
>>>>>> Flu jabs seem to require annual renewal.  That's partly because
>>>>>> variants
>>>>>> emerge quickly but probably indicates time-limited effectiveness:
>>>>>> perhaps as short as six months, as immunity is less important in summer.
>>>>>> Other than its severity, COVID seems to have more in common with colds
>>>>>> and flu than with the more serious diseases.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Flu annual cycle is because they have to try and predict which
>>>>> variant is likely to be the one going round this year. It's quite
>>>>> possible that Covid could end up in a similar position.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't quite work, because the flu variants they are immunising
>>>> against are already in circulation, they just try to predict which might
>>>> be in the ascendancy six months later.
>>>>
>>>> Covid variants are all brand new.
>>>
>>> No, they aren't brand new. They evolve from existing successful
>>> variants, so we do have clues about what might come
>>> next.
>>
>> Timelines again. They are "brand new" compared to the flu viruses which
>> are selected to be jabbed against each Autumn. And in any event Omicron
>> for example is still "new" in the timescale of creating, testing and
>> rolling out a new vaccine.
>>
>> See below for the dates the Omicrons were first discovered.
>>
>>>> Unless anyone thinks that Alpha (or
>>>> whatever) will be making a comeback next year.
>>>
>>> No, but next winter's dominant variant is very likely to be a
>>> descendant of the current Omicron BA.2 sub-variant. So, a
>>> vaccine designed to combat BA.2 is likely to be much more effective
>>> than one designed to combat Alpha.
>>
>> I'm confident that prediction is as unfounded as others of yours. Like
>> "there won't be a third wave". It doesn't mean there isn't a slim
>> possibility it'll be true, but you are coming across as over-confident.
>>
>>> "Reinfection with BA.2 following infection with BA.1 has been
>>> documented, however, initial data from population-level
>>> reinfection studies suggest that infection with BA.1 provides strong
>>> protection against reinfection with BA.2, at least
>>> for the limited period for which data are available."
>>>
>>> <https://www.who.int/news/item/22-02-2022-statement-on-omicron-sublineage-ba.2>
>>
>> More data on Covid lineages at:
>>
>> https://cov-lineages.org/lineage_list.html
>>
>> BA.1 mid Sept 2021
>> BA.2 mid Nov 2021
>> BA.3 end Nov 2021, also an Omicron; you can read the rest for yourself.
>
> The point is that these are close cousins, and prior infection with one provides good protection against its cousins.
> It's likely that the same will be true of vaccines, so an Omicron-focused vaccine will probably be more effective now
> than the original formulations, even if the virus has evolved further by the autumn, which is likely.

I'm hoping they can design a vaccine which targets parts of the virus
which are not changing.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 13:52:38 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:

>On 24/03/2022 13:03, Recliner wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 06:33:26 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <qd6m3h1l4sdarlf08u1ol0unt5su6fn7ba@4ax.com>, at 13:05:35 on
>>> Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 12:44:12 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <t1esuh$olo$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:31:45 on Wed, 23 Mar
>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 23/03/2022 09:54, Certes wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/03/2022 08:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <t1elej$372$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:23:47 on Wed, 23 Mar
>>>>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On 23/03/2022 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <t1crcs$4gd$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:00 on Tue, 22
>>>>>>>>>> Mar 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/03/2022 13:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <190dku9sht17s$.dlg@example1357.net>, at 12:06:18 on
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tue,  22  Mar 2022, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 07:13:01 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mainly because it's the only such disease where in plenty of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas 10%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the population have it during any one week (it's 11% here). Also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently the second most infectious one, behind measles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strange that we've eliminated smallpox, ebola, even measles to some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extent, but given up on covid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  It takes a generation (or more) to eradicate a disease. And
>>>>>>>>>>>> then you  can  only do the ones which aren't mutating in real time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>  There was a TV commercial last night saying that Covid
>>>>>>>>>>>> vaccinations  <quote> like all others wear off so need to be boosted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  That'll be news to people given HPV which I think they've now
>>>>>>>>>>>> decided is  a once-a-lifetime jab.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Quite a few vaccines need topping up, IIRC yellow fever only
>>>>>>>>>>> lasts 7 years. Cut yourself on a rusty nail and you'll get a
>>>>>>>>>>> tetanus booster and so on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Yes, not every traditional vaccine lasts a lifetime (or half a
>>>>>>>>>> lifetime), but most last more than six months.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The operative word being "most".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, but apart from Covid which other ones last only six months? The
>>>>>>>> TV adverts are trying to give the impression that "most"
>>>>>>>> traditionally only last six months, which is why we need to accept
>>>>>>>> the need to "also" get re-jabbed for Covid every six months.
>>>>>>> Flu jabs seem to require annual renewal.  That's partly because
>>>>>>> variants
>>>>>>> emerge quickly but probably indicates time-limited effectiveness:
>>>>>>> perhaps as short as six months, as immunity is less important in summer.
>>>>>>> Other than its severity, COVID seems to have more in common with colds
>>>>>>> and flu than with the more serious diseases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Flu annual cycle is because they have to try and predict which
>>>>>> variant is likely to be the one going round this year. It's quite
>>>>>> possible that Covid could end up in a similar position.
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't quite work, because the flu variants they are immunising
>>>>> against are already in circulation, they just try to predict which might
>>>>> be in the ascendancy six months later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Covid variants are all brand new.
>>>>
>>>> No, they aren't brand new. They evolve from existing successful
>>>> variants, so we do have clues about what might come
>>>> next.
>>>
>>> Timelines again. They are "brand new" compared to the flu viruses which
>>> are selected to be jabbed against each Autumn. And in any event Omicron
>>> for example is still "new" in the timescale of creating, testing and
>>> rolling out a new vaccine.
>>>
>>> See below for the dates the Omicrons were first discovered.
>>>
>>>>> Unless anyone thinks that Alpha (or
>>>>> whatever) will be making a comeback next year.
>>>>
>>>> No, but next winter's dominant variant is very likely to be a
>>>> descendant of the current Omicron BA.2 sub-variant. So, a
>>>> vaccine designed to combat BA.2 is likely to be much more effective
>>>> than one designed to combat Alpha.
>>>
>>> I'm confident that prediction is as unfounded as others of yours. Like
>>> "there won't be a third wave". It doesn't mean there isn't a slim
>>> possibility it'll be true, but you are coming across as over-confident.
>>>
>>>> "Reinfection with BA.2 following infection with BA.1 has been
>>>> documented, however, initial data from population-level
>>>> reinfection studies suggest that infection with BA.1 provides strong
>>>> protection against reinfection with BA.2, at least
>>>> for the limited period for which data are available."
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.who.int/news/item/22-02-2022-statement-on-omicron-sublineage-ba.2>
>>>
>>> More data on Covid lineages at:
>>>
>>> https://cov-lineages.org/lineage_list.html
>>>
>>> BA.1 mid Sept 2021
>>> BA.2 mid Nov 2021
>>> BA.3 end Nov 2021, also an Omicron; you can read the rest for yourself.
>>
>> The point is that these are close cousins, and prior infection with one provides good protection against its cousins.
>> It's likely that the same will be true of vaccines, so an Omicron-focused vaccine will probably be more effective now
>> than the original formulations, even if the virus has evolved further by the autumn, which is likely.
>
>I'm hoping they can design a vaccine which targets parts of the virus
>which are not changing.

Yes, at least one such vaccine is under development, and should enter stage 3 trials this year, but I suspect it won't
be available till next year. The good news is that it might protect against more corona viruses than just Covid.

<https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/feb/26/will-we-get-a-single-variant-proof-vaccine-for-covid>

On 23/03/2022 09:50, Certes wrote:

> We took a General Studies A Level, for which there was little or no
> teaching and everyone got a good grade for turning up.  Universities and
> employers were looking for "n A Levels excluding General Studies".
> It wasn't entirely trivial.  It had a strong arty bias (whereas my
> strengths were scientific) and required recalling to roughly O-Level
> standard a modern language that we'd had two years to forget.

My school forced people in the lower sixth who weren't doing an A level
language to do a spurious GCSE language, which timetabling quirks meant
had to be Spanish (continuing with the compulsory French or German from
GCSEs would surely have made more sense). Some of the smart arses did
ask why people doing French and German weren't forced to do a basic
maths or science course, and were told that was different because people
doing languages aren't barbarians incapable of anything needing
imagination or creativity.

Not one person got a C or above. Fortunately I realised the school was
lying when it said universities would rather have people with lower
grades in relevant A levels plus a C in Spanish than people with good A
levels but no Spanish, and I did literally no work other than turning up
for the hour a week.

--
Arthur Figgis

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:06:55 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

> I first saw them at scale in a pub which had just reopened with
> stringent Covid precautions. Tables separated, pre-booked only, one-way
> system, one person in toilets at a time, table service only etc. It was
> not at all clear what protection they gave either the waitresses or
> customers.

That was when we were fed the 'droplets' theory, science is now
reluctantly moving to the aerosol idea where earlier instructions to
clean surfaces and wash hands have given way to more emphasis on
ventilation and effective masks.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:37:38 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:

> Droplets are a form of airborne transmission.

But the original idea was that the droplets contaminated surfaces,
so everything should be madly washed (inc. hands). Now ventilation
and masks are thought to be more important.

mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:37:38 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:
>
>> Droplets are a form of airborne transmission.
>
> But the original idea was that the droplets contaminated surfaces,
> so everything should be madly washed (inc. hands). Now ventilation
> and masks are thought to be more important.
>

I’m a little more cynical. Cleaning and physical screens are things that
people can easily understand. So lots of people felt they were doing
“something” - and it’s cheap. Properly engineered ventilation is expensive.
Properly engineered ventilation with heat recovery is very expensive. All
the cleaning and plastic is very similar to the removal of metal railings
in the war. Good for morale but ultimately futile.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:00:18 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <t1g6oc$m2p$2@dont-email.me>, at 22:25:16 on Wed, 23 Mar
>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>
>>>>>> If you are susceptible for whatever reason you need to take *your
>>>>>> own* precautions, wearing proper FFP3 masks and probably reducing
>>>>>> your contact with others.
>>>
>>>> What about those who cannot wear FFP3 masks?
>>>
>>> It's not clear to me who that set comprises. In the early days there
>>> were some issues with FFP2 masks popping off people's ears all the time,
>>> but now you can get a gadget that pulls the strings round the back of
>>> you head instead.
>>
>>One which I read in a comment on FB today was autistic people who are
>>hypersensitive to things touching their face.
>
>Autistic people who are that sensitive will have many much greater
>issues to deal with wrt Covid (and I'm not just saying that, a close
>friend's day job is respite carer for autistic children whose parents
>can no longer cope with them 24x7).
>
Autism can be very variable in the combinations of features and other
physical or mental conditions which can accompany them. Many will have
their autism not immediately apparent to those they work/live with but
with individual elements which are.

On 24/03/2022 19:40, mechanic wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:37:38 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:
>
>> Droplets are a form of airborne transmission.
>
> But the original idea was that the droplets contaminated surfaces,
> so everything should be madly washed (inc. hands). Now ventilation
> and masks are thought to be more important.

They do but the effect is not as bad as was expected.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.