You’re in a pandemic, Im in Florida

@SW-User weve been on this since mid april in 2020, but nice of you to join us

@GabbySA8 I know. In fairness we have at times as well but it seems this time there's finality to it...meanwhile countries like Australia and New Zealand get worse and worse.

@SW-User Story already seen; it'll last until the next variant/wave

@Elessar Wrong.

I get the impression you consistently and quite literally foam at the mouth in anticipation for the next strain of the virus but I have to remind you that each and every new strain is a weaker one. This information may serve to deflate the excitement you clearly feel toward covid but it is the truth. Perhaps at some point in the future this hysterical obsession you have with the virus will dissipate and die a natural (alas long awaited and increasingly overdue) death but until then you simply can't expect those of sound mind to treat your views with any kind of seriousness.

@SW-User Not really, I simply acknowledge how biology works, mutations are random and viruses have no pressure altogether to become milder. Rabies has existed for millennia and it still kills the 100% of those it infects, smallpox never became milder either, neither did polio, ebola, HIV, chickenpox, measler or any other virus aside from pandemic Influenza strains (which have no sh*t in common with coronaviridae).

The only thing that selects a mutation over another is a spread advantage. With the numbers this virus is making all over the world it's only a (short) matter of time before it mutates again, it's simple elementary school-level maths.

I'm just done with "optimistic" loons predicting the end of this thing since it's very beginning, and consistently failing to do so, leading to society as a whole to getting pounded in the a5s at any and every iteraction.

Have a good day.

@Elessar Whether they have "pressure" to become milder is not relevant to my point - it's about whether they DO become milder, especially viruses of this kind. We've had enough time over the past 2-3 years to ascertain that there has been a consistent and very reliable pattern of Covid-19 mutating into weaker strains. The most recent variant is a perfect example of that as hospitalisation and death rates have been been increasingly low. In the U.K it has surpassed the delta variant in terms of prevalence and there has not been any increase in virulent disease or severe illness. The same can be said for South Africa as omicron did not cause an increase in deaths larger than that of the delta variant, and of course this is despite the fact that only a minority of their population is vaccinated.

@SW-User If there's no evolutionary pressure for them to become milder, they won't become milder. At most, our immunity is increasing day by day either with vaccination, recovery from infection, and that's hopefully sufficient to lower the effect it has on the population as a whole, but again, unless it mutates enough to evade completely or significantly this level of protection. Again, mutations are purely random, they won't care about the human economy, they won't care about the survival of the hosts so long as those hosts still transmit independently from the outcome, and that's the case with this virus

Omicron is milder because randomness, Delta did the opposite and mutated from a bad strain to an even worse strain. There's no guarantees that Pi (or whatever the next VoC is) will be any milder or any worse, it's just like flipping a coin, no more and no less.

@SW-User I'm sorry to disappoint but it doesn't work like that, these are thing you all make up in your heads because you're fatigued by the pandemic and can't accept reality, therefore you need to make optimistic scenarios. It's exactly the kind of thinking that brought us here, instead of eliminating while it was possible like we did with SARS-1. Remember how natural immunity would've been achieved after the first wave (it didn't happen), after the Alpha wave (and it didn't happen), after the Delta wave (and it didn't happen) and now you're still believing the "happy ending" will magically come after the Omicron one. There are plenty of people getting reinfected over and over, whether they have "natural immunity", vaccine-induced immunity or even a combination of both. Every single re/infection is an opportunity for the virus to mutate in a new VoC. And we know already that this virus and literally every other virus in its category have the potential to mutate in order to evade immunity of any kind, thus there's no guarantees that the next mutations won't be bad.

Delta *is* more severe than the original / wild-type (and even Alpha):
[quote]In the Delta cases, there was a 108% increase in the risk of hospitalization, a 235% increased risk of ICU admission, and a 133% higher risk of death, compared with the original variant.

These effects were present even when the researchers adjusted the data for factors such as age, sex, vaccination status, and comorbidities.[/quote]
[u]https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/delta-variant-has-235-percent-higher-risk-of-icu-admission-than-original-virus#Increased-risk-from-the-Delta-variant[/u] (original studies linked inside)

Again, it's just utter luck that Omicron is less severe, and there are no guarantees whatsoever for what comes next.

@Elessar I am a single person so I've no idea why you've resorted to using plural terms such as "heads", although it doesn't particularly offend me as it only serves to highlight your immaturity and discredit your argument further. I can't see why you've assumed fatigue and optimism on the side of people who you perceive to be against lockdowns either. I for one have never been fatigued by this virus because I have never allowed it to dictate my life and have conducted my activities and interests as I usually would like all other rational human beings have. You shouldn't mistake realism for optimism.

There is such a thing as following patterns and reviewing the science in a way that does not allow for hysteria and overreaction. You have reacted in a deeply irrational and extreme way to this virus and it becomes more patently obviously with each post/reply you make. Quite bluntly, my advice to you would be to go out and [u]get a life.[/u]

@SW-User You're a single person that reiterates like a parrot whatever the "pro-covid" hivemind has been proclaiming since day one, failing any and every prediction they've made so far; so long as I see no originality nor critical thinking in what you're trying to throw at me, I'll continue to address you in plural form.

Projection is always strong with you people, the one who's immaturely trying to push pseudoscientific nonsense against any piece of evidence, in this thread, is not me. Feel free to link any study that demonstrates how SARS-CoV-2 can't mutate in a worse, more contagious, more virulent and/or more immune-escaping variant after Omicron and I'll retreat my position, until then what we know so far holds true: mutations are random, future variants can be more virulent/severe just like they can be less virulent, there's currently no evolutionary selection to make SVC2 any milder, there's currently no form of immunity (natural or artificial) that is anywhere sterilizing enough to possibly eradicate this virus with its insane Rt, or even more so any potentially more immune-evasive future variants with a potentially even higher Rt.

Quite bluntly, my advice to you is to abstain from discussion where clearly you know jacksh*t about the subject. What I do with my life isn't your concern and has absolutely nothing to do with the matter being discussed here.

@Elessar That's some rather strange advice to give when it was you who instigated discussion with me. If you desire abstinence from people with different views to your own then I strongly suggest you desist from the initiation of conversation with them. Yet again it makes you present as immature and contrary, as well as pointing to a complete inability to maintain any sensible debate with people.

@SW-User If you haven't noticed this is a public forum. You're allowed to write bullsh*t just as much as I'm allowed to call you out for it. Besides, the whole argument started when you've written "Wrong" to my input and began throwing pseudoscience at me, without providing any evidence whatsoever in support of your claims, at that point I've simply defended my stance.

Again, projection is strong with you, you can see the mote in your opponent's eye but not the beam in your own. Learn how to debate, with evidence, and then we can have this talk.

@Elessar And where have you provided evidence for your claims? Your contention is that restrictions should essentially be continued with on what is presumably an indefinite basis because you believe the coronavirus to be consistently deadly enough to warrant this.

To add to that you're also claiming that the coronavirus is unpredictable to a degree that it is perhaps more likely than not that the next strain will kill more people than the current strain omicron has. YOU are the one making those claims so the onus is on you to demonstrate why, on balance, continued restrictions ought to be in place. If you again attempt to deviate from my original comment and your original response to that comment my point is proven in that you will have shown yourself to have no credible argument here.

@SW-User Strawman (#1): I've said nothing about "restrictions should essentially be continued with on what is presumably an indefinite basis", I've just doubted that whatever Johnson promised (i.e. elimination of all restrictions) would last mid/long term, just at most until the next variant of concern emerges. The time from one dominating VoC to another depends primarily on how much the virus replicates (infects) and thus mutates.

Strawman (#2): In addition to that, what I've asserted is regards to mutations is that they're purely random, and that the "it's necessarily becoming milder" is nothing more than the umpteenth manifestation of the very same dangerous [i]hopium [/i]that led us where we are right now. Underestimating the virus until it pounds us in the a5s for what, the 5th consecutive time now? Mutations can can happen in a way that make the virus milder [b]exactly[/b] as they can happen in a way that makes the virus more virulent.

As I said previously, you gotta understand what I'm talking about before we can have this talk; resorting on blaming me for saying things I've never said in the first place speaks volume about the legitimacy of your opinion, let alone the goodness of your intentions.

It's easy to find material in literature that covers the mutational landscape and scarce predictability for SARS-CoV-2, you could've invested better the time you've wasted making false accusations on here by searching them. On top of my mind:

- [u]https://www.science.org/content/article/new-sars-cov-2-variants-have-changed-pandemic-what-will-virus-do-next[/u]

- [u]https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03619-8[/u]

- [u]https://wexnermedical.osu.edu/blog/virus-mutations-what-do-they-mean[/u]

- [u]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5075021/[/u]

@Elessar That is precisely what the insinuation was and I shall explain to you why:

I clearly stated that my opinion on England dispensing with most restrictions is a *good* thing, and you responded with a comment which indicated a belief that this action is not one that should be pursued or is misguided in some way. Your response to the original post itself further evidences your belief that restrictions should be continued and maintained.

Now, what is this based on? It appears to be based on your belief that covid is an inherently unpredictable virus. Your proposal is that it is so unpredictable there is every chance that the next strain after omicron will be more deadly to people. This is an opinion that is not based on any real data because all of the data suggests that covid has become weaker in terms of severity of illness and subsequent death. Data indicates consistent patterns and you do not seem to be giving proper consideration to those patterns.

Perhaps you should also give some consideration to implications and what they are when it comes to debating a point. If we were to follow your perspective in relation to this virus and how to handle it, what do you think the implications would really be? Do you think they would be more positive than negative? If so you are vastly mistaken.

I'd add that the articles you've linked are purely speculative as well.

@SW-User My response to your initial comment is that I find the English decision anti-scientific. Corroborated by literally anything we know about this virus and viral evolution thus far. Now you admit that "the articles you've linked are purely speculative [b]as well[/b]", implying that your stance also was. You do it NOW. A while back you were saying, literally, and I quote:
[quote]'ve had enough time over the past 2-3 years to ascertain that there has been a consistent and very reliable pattern of Covid-19 mutating into weaker strains.[/quote]
Which is utterly false, not based on any evidence whatsoever aside from the purely anecdotal experience of 4 (FOUR) strains, two of which (Alpha and Delta) both more virulent than the WT, and the latter even more virulent than the former, in spite of appearing in this exact order of succession, proving your claim empirically wrong already.

Ignoring the reiterations of the very same lunatic strawmans (and variants thereof), you'll find the dissertation of the strawmans and the answers to the questions you pose respectively in the previous reply of mine and in the articles I've linked, if you care enough to read them in full and not limit yourself to the titles.

Ah, and if now we both agree that "the evolutionary future of SCV2 is unknown and unpredictable, all we have is speculation", you may want to educate yourself about what is the "precautionary principle". Had it been followed, instead of enabling hopium addicted "optimistic" loons, the pandemic would've probably ended the same year it had started.

@Elessar The decision isn't "anti-scientific" because it has considered a number of scientific factors. The primary factor is that omicron has resulted in very few hospitalisations and very few deaths. Given this data one has to consider whether continuing restrictions is a proportionate and sensible response. Perhaps you might have a point IF the current wave was associated with an alarmingly high number of hospitalisations and deaths but it is simply not. The current omicron variant is not severe to a degree that warrants prolonged restrictions, and people can hardly be expected to be subject to restrictions because of a new variant that [i]might[/i] surface and [i]might[/i] be more severe than the current one. It is in fact deeply irrational on your part to believe that restrictions should remain in place because of what [i]could[/i] happen, especially when in terms of virulence and severe disease it probably [i]won't[/i] happen.

That you can accuse me of using strawman tactics when you've routinely and quite blatantly resorted to this very improper method of arguing yourself is actually astonishing. You've accused me of contradicting my own point, which I have absolutely not done. My observation of the above articles being speculative is not a contradiction because my argument is based on data amassed over a two year period. The articles you chose to link however feature *some* scientists rather casually theorising what could or couldn't happen with Covid-19. As opposed to their ideas being exclusively based on the data we have, it appears to be based on data we actually don't have. Once again I will reiterate that the data we do have informs us that over time covid has become weaker and that at this stage, it is less likely than not that there will be a strain more deadly than omicron and any of the strains before that. We can perhaps see that there appears to be temporary increase in hospitalisations during the winter period, but this does not differentiate the virus from any other cold or flu virus during the winter season and the data we have strongly indicates that it has already become less of a problem. In England there was no lockdown at all this winter and still omicron only caused a very small number of deaths, and similarly to other strains these were in considerably clinically vulnerable patients.

And, there is a marked difference between being "realistic" and "optimistic". Those who think that continued restrictions are unnecessary are being realistic because they recognise patterns from preexisting data, and are able to comprehend that restrictions are not the norm in society and should therefore be subject to sufficient and proportionate reasoning. IF the strain that country is currently experiencing is not causing severe illness overall, then it is obviously a disproportionate response to implement or continue with restrictions. This applies even more when maintaining these restrictions is a way to manage strains that haven't even come into existence yet. A reaction to something that isn't there is what is called an overreaction and that is neither scientific nor economically sensible in this situation.

@SW-User And again, Omicron is just one VoC, the fact it's milder than delta doesn't mean that whatever variant comes next will also be, that's the kernel of the discussion. You keep reiterating and deflecting from this point because you can't accept reality. The English decision is merely political and populist, and most likely won't stay up for long in virtue of what we know about mutations, politics and populism.

You're either ignorant to the point of not understanding the meaning of what you're saying, or in complete bad faith, one of the two. Reread the conversation from the beginning and you'll realize who's pushing false statements, who's resorting on strawmans, who's resorting on deflection, and who provided zero evidence whatsoever for whatever they're claiming out of their hypocritical cult. The "data" you're referencing, alone, proves you wrong already, because as I've said multiple times both Alpha and Delta (2 major VoCs out of 3, with the only exception of Omicron) were significantly more severe by their ancestor strain(s). There's no pattern whatsoever suggesting SCV2 is going milder, we've just gotten one (1) milder VoC with no guarantees whatsoever on the next one(s). Again, viruses that have existed for decades/centuries/millennia (rabies, measles, smallpox, chickenpox, polio, HIV, MERS, ebola) have never become less severe, the burden of proof in saying this one will be different is on you who's making the statement, not on me who's defending established knowledge. But again, you keep deflecting and projecting because that's all what you pro-covid people are capable of doing. And I keep calling you out for your BS.

Get an education or just STFU until you have anything concrete and factual to say. And stop playing the victim after you've been caught lying, it's extremely pathetic.

@Elessar Aw, it looks like little Elsa has frustrated himself with all of this seemingly difficult discourse for him...maybe you should go and take a break instead of resorting to baseless insults. It's infantile and completely redundant to question someone's education just because they think that restrictions when the variant in question is an extremely manageable one are not necessary. In fact I would contend that it's actually insane to be in favour of mask mandates, prolonged social distancing in public areas, prolonged social distancing with respect to the workplace and working from home, and possible vaccine mandates when there is NO virulent strain of the virus in existence and is YET to be a virulent strain of the virus in existence in the future.

What is so profoundly difficult for you to understand about that?

@SW-User As I previously stated, when you'll have anything worth being shared that isn't strawmans, ad hominems and deflection let me know. Your lack of education is empirical, in fact you can't produce evidence in support of your claims, and you changed from "there is a pattern towards variants becoming mild" to "ReStRiCtIoNs CaN'T gO oN fOrEvEr bEcAuSe ThE vIrUs Is UnKnOwN, I wAnT mY mOmMy!!111!1! 😭😭" once I pointed out that your point doesn't stand up in this reality.

You're seriously some good free entertainment. Wasn't for the fact that you and your fellow cultists are contributing to prolonging this pandemic unnecessarily for two years in a row.

I suggest to prepare some tissue papers for the next variant, I predict some unprecedented level of crying and whining from your part as soon as all the measures will (likely) be reintroduced, and when you'll realize to that populists promises generally don't last long.

@Elessar There is something really quite wrong with you. I am not even saying that as an insult as your attitude toward this virus is genuinely very disturbing and I think you're in extreme need of psychological help. Even if covid were as dangerous as you propose it to be, it would still be abnormal to be so thoroughly obsessed.

Not sure why you're suggesting I will need tissues either as I'm not inclined to follow covid restrictions anyway. It doesn't make any difference to me whether restrictions are in place or not as if I don't want to wear a mask or socially distance I won't 😆 What I appreciate from the government in England is the stance they are making and how they are being openly forward thinking with respect to this virus. More countries will follow whether you like it or not...soon you'll be totally alone and people will look back and realise just how absurd your approach to covid actually was/is. This will all be a distant memory within the next couple of years and you'll be sat there in your basement looking like the complete imbecile you truly are.

@SW-User And again, another strawman and further projections. I'm not going to defend positions you're making up in your mind and attributing to me, get psychological help for your delusions and don't waste people time.

To sum up, the relevant points are:

1. Mutations/variants are purely random.
2. Alpha and Delta were both more severe than their antecedent, Omicron is somewhat milder (but at the same time, far more contagious than both), the future variant that will replace Omicron may be both or may be neither, it's literally the flip of a coin.
3. Removing all the containment measures in place is merely a populist move, and with what we know about this virus so far, not guaranteed in the slightest to be feasible in the long run. They'll likely be reintroduced at the next VoC, story already seen 3/3 times already.
4. If measures didn't affect you as you claim you wouldn't be here whining like a toddler. 😆 Besides, I couldn't give a single f*ck about whether they're in place or not, as I said that's your strawman argument. I just care about calling out your BS.

The one making up stories in their head and trying to pass them as the ultimate truth, coming up with a constant flow of strawmans and delusional stories, being called out on her bullcr*p and calling those who called them out "imbecile" and "obsessed". Who would've ever expected that from someone so evidently either too ignorant to understand what they're speaking about, or just full of sh*t and in bad faith. 😜

Go get an education and some factual arguments, then we can have this talk, as previously stated.

@Elessar

Delta was only mildly more severe in terms of disease and one must consider the winter period of 2020-2021 as this period is always going to be associated with an increase in serious illness. In fact, had the original strain hit Europe in November-December 2019 there may well have been a higher number of deaths but we weren't affected by the virus until spring 2020 and that makes a notable difference. As for your claim of the decision to dispense with restrictions being a "populist" move that is only temporary, you will find that you are very wrong. England has always been more free and progressive in terms of its covid policy and the most recent restrictions we had were only in place for a month. Prior to that people weren't required to wear masks indoors, nor were they required to socially distance. What this latest announcement and set of guidelines is about is highlighting to the public that there will now be permanent and lasting change in how we return to normal life. This is something that continental countries in Europe won't understand because they've become extremely regressive and backwards.

Out of curiosity, why is it you insist on copying every contention I make? I suppose I will take it as a compliment but it is most unoriginal. I'm also bored of you repeating the same insults as they're really tedious and dull.

@SW-User False. The risk with Delta was significantly higher in all the measured endpoints compared to the initial strain (2-fold for hospitalization, 3-fold for ICU and 2-fold for death):
[quote]In the Delta cases, there was a 108% increase in the risk of hospitalization, a 235% increased risk of ICU admission, and a 133% higher risk of death compared with the original variant[/quote]
- [u]https://www.cmaj.ca/content/cmaj/early/2021/10/04/cmaj.211248.full.pdf[/u]
- [u]https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/delta-variant-has-235-percent-higher-risk-of-icu-admission-than-original-virus[/u]
- [u]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00475-8/fulltext[/u]

And less remarked but still significant also with Alpha, compared to wild type (2-fold for critical care access and 1.6-fold for death):
[quote]After adjusting for covariables, primary care patients infected with the Alpha strain were 65% more likely to die by 28 days than those infected by other coronavirus lineages. The Alpha variant was also associated with a doubled risk of requiring CCU admission (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.15), but the researchers note it was not linked to death or need for organ support in those receiving critical care.[/quote]
- [u]https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/06/alpha-sars-cov-2-variant-tied-more-severe-outcomes[/u]

If anything, with the sole exception of Omicron, the trend for SCV2 is getting more severe, not milder, at least with 2 dominating variants out of 3.

[quote]England has always been more free and progressive in terms of its covid policy[/quote]
In fact we've all seen how it's going

- [u]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/07/military-deployed-at-london-hospitals-due-to-omicron-staff-shortages[/u]

- [u]https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/16/heart-attack-patient-raises-alarm-nhs-hospital-yorkshire-ambulance-service[/u]

Overseas, where they're even more "free", it seems even worse

- [u]https://www.reuters.com/world/us/overwhelmed-by-omicron-surge-us-hospitals-delay-surgeries-2022-01-07/[/u]

[-]
Again, whatever movie you're projecting in your head is completely divergent from reality. Reiterate your strawmans, ad-hominem and "hurr durr muh freedom" as much as you want, it won't change a single thing.

Still waiting for you to provide a reference to a study that establishes all the upcoming variant post-omicron are going to be milder btw, you've lost a lot of time chatting and deflecting so far, but you've yet to corroborate your initial point. Where is the evidence for the claim you've made?