coronavirus

[ckn]

11 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

Not particularly relevant.

Vaccines are in progress, but a vaccine that works will still work to a certain extent. The flu vaccine is not 100% effective and it is unlikely that a vaccine to this will be either. It will initially give a greater degree of protection to some vulnerable people and some key workers, and later reduce the transmission rate.

It should contribute to herd immunity (and that's used in a positive way) if we can get even 90% uptake of those who've not had a positive test in the past (therefore should have SOME antibodies). As soon as we can get high numbers of even very effective (rather than completely effective) vaccine then we can start getting back to normal in relative confidence of safety.

[Northern Eel]

4 minutes ago, ckn said:

It should contribute to herd immunity (and that's used in a positive way) if we can get even 90% uptake of those who've not had a positive test in the past (therefore should have SOME antibodies). As soon as we can get high numbers of even very effective (rather than completely effective) vaccine then we can start getting back to normal in relative confidence of safety.

Is it right to think that, despite its negative connotations,  herd immunity is our best bet of restoring some sort of normality in the absence of an effective vaccine?

I keep hearing the question, 'If you've had it, can you have it again?, but I am just as interested in whether this means that having already had the virus, you can't be infectious to other people again (ie you may be carrying the virus, but be immune to it). That's the biggie, if ultimately herd immunity has such a big role to play. I am well out of my knowledge base on stuff like this, so it might be a daft question.

[ckn]

2 minutes ago, Northern Eel said:

Is it right to think that, despite its negative connotations,  herd immunity is our best bet of restoring some sort of normality in the absence of an effective vaccine?

I keep hearing the question, 'If you've had it, can you have it again?, but I am just as interested in whether this means that having already had the virus, you can't be infectious to other people again (ie you may be carrying the virus, but be immune to it). That's the biggie, if ultimately herd immunity has such a big role to play. I am well out of my knowledge base on stuff like this, so it might be a daft question.

On the first para: If the immunity is gained via vaccine, yes. If it's gained by throwing people to the infection and just sucking up the death count, no, there be panic, dragons and many more years of long-term economic and health impacts.

On the second para: there simply is no answer to whether you can get it again or not as it's confusing some of the best medical minds. Some people being tested for antibodies weeks post confirmred infection are seeing zero antibodies, almost as if the body isn't storing the template to fight off a second infection.

If you're carrying the virus, you're infectious to one level or another. And even that's not perfect. For example, up to two weeks after a blood tests says you're now COVID-negative you can still be defecating small amounts of live virus.

[Bob8]

13 minutes ago, ckn said:

It should contribute to herd immunity (and that's used in a positive way) if we can get even 90% uptake of those who've not had a positive test in the past (therefore should have SOME antibodies). As soon as we can get high numbers of even very effective (rather than completely effective) vaccine then we can start getting back to normal in relative confidence of safety.

Absolutely.

5 minutes ago, Northern Eel said:

Is it right to think that, despite its negative connotations,  herd immunity is our best bet of restoring some sort of normality in the absence of an effective vaccine?

I keep hearing the question, 'If you've had it, can you have it again?, but I am just as interested in whether this means that having already had the virus, you can't be infectious to other people again (ie you may be carrying the virus, but be immune to it). That's the biggie, if ultimately herd immunity has such a big role to play. I am well out of my knowledge base on stuff like this, so it might be a daft question.

Herd imunity can wipe out diseases. Herd immunity is great in itself, it is the route to that goal that can be the tragic problem.

Biology is horribly grey as multicellular organisms are very complex.

[Bob8]

1 minute ago, ckn said:

On the first para: If the immunity is gained via vaccine, yes. If it's gained by throwing people to the infection and just sucking up the death count, no, there be panic, dragons and many more years of long-term economic and health impacts.

On the second para: there simply is no answer to whether you can get it again or not as it's confusing some of the best medical minds. Some people being tested for antibodies weeks post confirmred infection are seeing zero antibodies, almost as if the body isn't storing the template to fight off a second infection.

If you're carrying the virus, you're infectious to one level or another. And even that's not perfect. For example, up to two weeks after a blood tests says you're now COVID-negative you can still be defecating small amounts of live virus.

I saw your reply and deleted much of my half written answer as you put it much better.

[Northern Eel]

26 minutes ago, ckn said:

On the first para: If the immunity is gained via vaccine, yes. If it's gained by throwing people to the infection and just sucking up the death count, no, there be panic, dragons and many more years of long-term economic and health impacts.

 

But in the absence of a vaccine?

[ckn]

If 10% of squaddies are working from home, I guess that'll mean 10+ coats of paint on already well painted stuff, unnecessary shouting at each other for no reason other than ego, morning parades for the family, more painting, maybe a lot of running around the garden, and finished off by a lot of waiting around griping about how long it is until the next break. For the officers, it may mean more Telegraph rustling and harrumphing at the domestic staff that there's a water stain on the Mess silver.

[Damien]

People on this board would know better than me but I've seen or heard (I cant actually remember) that there is possibly a correlation between the initial dose a person receives and the seriousness of the condition they develop. I think the theory is that a tiny dose gives the body more time to fight back where as a bigger dose can overwhelm quicker. Hence partly the death figures for Doctors and Nurses. This makes sense to me and my unscientific mind, especially as it is essentially the way that vaccines work. Does this sound plausible?

[ckn]

6 minutes ago, Northern Eel said:

But in the absence of a vaccine?

Social distancing, doing your damnedest to keep your hands washed if you touch anything that's likely to be infected, wearing a face covering (not necessarily a medical mask) and so on. And then accepting excrement happens occasionally and you can't 100% risk manage. But that can only happen once you get infection numbers dropping to low levels, I've seen <100/day as the benchmark for a widespread relaxation of lockdown but that's just a best guess that'll help reduce future outbreaks.

[ckn]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

People on this board would know better than me but I've seen or heard (I cant actually remember) that there is possibly a correlation between the initial dose a person receives and the seriousness of the condition they develop. I think the theory is that a tiny dose gives the body more time to fight back where as a bigger dose can overwhelm quicker. Hence partly the death figures for Doctors and Nurses. This makes sense to me and my unscientific mind, especially as it is essentially the way that vaccines work. Does this sound plausible?

Best guess is yes, viral load MAY have a big impact. Here's one explanation I got via a google search.

[Northern Eel]

5 minutes ago, ckn said:

Social distancing, doing your damnedest to keep your hands washed if you touch anything that's likely to be infected, wearing a face covering (not necessarily a medical mask) and so on. And then accepting excrement happens occasionally and you can't 100% risk manage. But that can only happen once you get infection numbers dropping to low levels, I've seen <100/day as the benchmark for a widespread relaxation of lockdown but that's just a best guess that'll help reduce future outbreaks.

And how do you think that will effect things like summer holidays etc? I note a change in tone in the last week from places like Cornwall, where before they were telling people to stay away and now are desperate for the tourist season to reverse some of their income loss.

[ckn]

1 minute ago, Northern Eel said:

And how do you think that will effect things like summer holidays etc? I note a change in tone in the last week from places like Cornwall, where before they were telling people to stay away and now are desperate for the tourist season to reverse some of their income loss.

It depends. For example easyJet saying they'll start again by keeping middle seats free in a block of three will help a small bit. It's all about reducing unnecessary contact and keeping SOME distance.

Even simple things such as not touching your face without spotlessly clean hands will help, and help with many other things as well. If we keep doing this then I (in a wholly non clinical guess) think next winter's flu outbreak and deaths will be much lower.

Same with driving half the country for a holiday. A family group already living together then appropriately socially distancing in a slightly safer post-lockdown world should be fine as long as they play it safely.  For example, if I went on holiday in the first six months post-lockdown then I'd be there with the anti-viral wipes going round anything I'd touch and be asking them if I can do my own sheets rather than a cleaner.

Take that easyJet scenario. I'd be going on the flight with anti-viral wipes, clean down my seat as much as I can, then do my best to sit on my hands to stop me touching my face. Get off the flight and into clean clothes as soon as possible (including shoes). Nowhere near perfect but better than nothing.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

And proof that the humble pigeon is smarter than some humans

[ckn]

NOT a political point (the actual numbers are a political point and one for that thread)

It's amazing the adaptability of the human brain. Two weeks ago we were in horror at the Italian numbers and no-one was willing to accept that that could happen here. Yet, here we are: 14,576 deaths and it's "ah well, but Prince William dialled someone on Zoom while making sure the media got an invite as well"

 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 hour ago, Northern Eel said:

And how do you think that will effect things like summer holidays etc? I note a change in tone in the last week from places like Cornwall, where before they were telling people to stay away and now are desperate for the tourist season to reverse some of their income loss.

From earlier today

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps suggested people should not book summer holidays for later this year.

[gingerjon]

48 minutes ago, ckn said:

NOT a political point (the actual numbers are a political point and one for that thread)

It's amazing the adaptability of the human brain. Two weeks ago we were in horror at the Italian numbers and no-one was willing to accept that that could happen here. Yet, here we are: 14,576 deaths and it's "ah well, but Prince William dialled someone on Zoom while making sure the media got an invite as well"

 

I'm trying to remember what we thought when we though it ... a few days ago I saw a retweet of a Fraser Nelson column from a few days before that where he said Covid would be fine because we would definitely have less than 5,700 deaths.

What's it going to be now? 25,000? 30,000? More than that?

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, ckn said:

NOT a political point (the actual numbers are a political point and one for that thread)

It's amazing the adaptability of the human brain. Two weeks ago we were in horror at the Italian numbers and no-one was willing to accept that that could happen here. Yet, here we are: 14,576 deaths and it's "ah well, but Prince William dialled someone on Zoom while making sure the media got an invite as well"

 

I was thinking earlier. The images from Italy when they were near the peak were far more grim than any images we are seeing here. We were seeing coffins lined up and chaos in hospitals. 

It all seems very civilised here during this period, are we simply handling it better, or have a far higher capacity? Or are our issues just spread more thinly over larger areas? 

[ckn]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I was thinking earlier. The images from Italy when they were near the peak were far more grim than any images we are seeing here. We were seeing coffins lined up and chaos in hospitals. 

It all seems very civilised here during this period, are we simply handling it better, or have a far higher capacity? Or are our issues just spread more thinly over larger areas? 

We routinely ban journalists from infected clinical areas. Italy allowed them in so people could see the horrors and STAY AT HOME.

[fairfolly]

CKN,

          Apparently there was scope for 38,000 tests today but apparently only 21,000 turned up for the test. Any idea why, could it be that a lot of N.H.S. workers are on their annual six months sick with pay,and do not want to go back to work.Or am I just being cynical?

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, fairfolly said:

CKN,

          Apparently there was scope for 38,000 tests today but apparently only 21,000 turned up for the test. Any idea why, could it be that a lot of N.H.S. workers are on their annual six months sick with pay,and do not want to go back to work.Or am I just being cynical?

“Annual six months sick”.

What a vile thing to say.

[ckn]

9 minutes ago, fairfolly said:

CKN,

          Apparently there was scope for 38,000 tests today but apparently only 21,000 turned up for the test. Any idea why, could it be that a lot of N.H.S. workers are on their annual six months sick with pay,and do not want to go back to work.Or am I just being cynical?

I saw your first point and was about to answer it as a correction assuming you'd just had poor wording of that sentence. The second sentence suggests you're yet another boring troll.

And another on ignore. And another improvement to my browsing of this forum.

(Oh, and one other post removed replying to this as it was just a bit more impolite than my response).

[Shadow]

Just now, ckn said:

I saw your first point and was about to answer it as a correction assuming you'd just had poor wording of that sentence. The second sentence suggests you're yet another boring troll.

And another on ignore. And another improvement to my browsing of this forum.

(Oh, and one other post removed replying to this as it was just a bit more impolite than my response).

I stand by my assessment.

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Shadow said:

I stand by my assessment.

Yes, but your spelling ...

[fairfolly]

No, I am not a troll, far from it. I hold my hand up and agree my wording of the request was not very well worded. I will try it this way, is it correct that when any N.H.S worker is off with illness or the like they receive a total of six months with pay per year.?

[Robin Evans]

18 minutes ago, fairfolly said:

CKN,

          Apparently there was scope for 38,000 tests today but apparently only 21,000 turned up for the test. Any idea why, could it be that a lot of N.H.S. workers are on their annual six months sick with pay,and do not want to go back to work.Or am I just being cynical?

This is an affront to all of my colleagues towin their tripe out and risking their lives in the most stressful of circumstances. Medical staff are dying out there you ****house.

I hope you step over then line far enough to be banned from.these boards. Keep on and it's likely to be me that's banned. 

I may well take CKN's advice and deploy ignore mode. 

Shame on you.