 Poster: A snowHead
|
@denfinella, go to:
https://cv19info.live/
Scroll down and find “Choose Data” and select “100k”. The table below then shows the number of confirmed infections and deaths per 100k of the population.
UK is currently at 45 infections per 100k and 3.5 deaths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@under a new name, Austria have just started a programme of statistical sampling. As far as I can discern, they are sending out antibody test kits to 2000 randomly selected households. We'll know the results in a few days, though imo it seems like a bit of a small sample.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
| snowdave wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
| Friend of ours and her flat mate have just been confirmed with having cv, not sure how but they have had it confirmed they caught it in morzine, they were there last week before lockdown, lot more about than testing shows obviously |
How long ago were they in Morzine? |
The last week before the shut down |
So that's about three weeks ago? How long has France been on shutdown? Most people seem to show symptoms much quicker than that (I think the WHO says 6 days is average) so knowing for certain that they caught it in Morzine seems a bit of a stretch. |
The current UK guidelines on this are here: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/self-isolation-advice/
To summarise: if you've been exposed, you're clear after 14 days symptom-free. If you've had symptoms, you're clear 7 days after onset.
To present with symptoms >21 days after exposure seems inconsistent with current guidelines.
I'd be amazed if there was a genetically sequenced "Morzine variant" and that people in the UK were having their viral RNA sequenced to determine the source of infection. We're struggling to do 10,000 PCR tests/day; genetic sequencing is several orders of magnitude harder/slower than PCR. |
The virus is mutating.
One strain now lasts up to ~7 weeks. |
Is this true?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| Whitegold wrote: |
| snowdave wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
| Friend of ours and her flat mate have just been confirmed with having cv, not sure how but they have had it confirmed they caught it in morzine, they were there last week before lockdown, lot more about than testing shows obviously |
How long ago were they in Morzine? |
The last week before the shut down |
So that's about three weeks ago? How long has France been on shutdown? Most people seem to show symptoms much quicker than that (I think the WHO says 6 days is average) so knowing for certain that they caught it in Morzine seems a bit of a stretch. |
The current UK guidelines on this are here: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/self-isolation-advice/
To summarise: if you've been exposed, you're clear after 14 days symptom-free. If you've had symptoms, you're clear 7 days after onset.
To present with symptoms >21 days after exposure seems inconsistent with current guidelines.
I'd be amazed if there was a genetically sequenced "Morzine variant" and that people in the UK were having their viral RNA sequenced to determine the source of infection. We're struggling to do 10,000 PCR tests/day; genetic sequencing is several orders of magnitude harder/slower than PCR. |
The virus is mutating.
One strain now lasts up to ~7 weeks. |
Is this true? |
Going by his normal posts no, and dont forget a mutation could be worse or even milder
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| robs1 wrote: |
| Gerry wrote: |
| Whitegold wrote: |
| snowdave wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| robs1 wrote: |
| Friend of ours and her flat mate have just been confirmed with having cv, not sure how but they have had it confirmed they caught it in morzine, they were there last week before lockdown, lot more about than testing shows obviously |
How long ago were they in Morzine? |
The last week before the shut down |
So that's about three weeks ago? How long has France been on shutdown? Most people seem to show symptoms much quicker than that (I think the WHO says 6 days is average) so knowing for certain that they caught it in Morzine seems a bit of a stretch. |
The current UK guidelines on this are here: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/self-isolation-advice/
To summarise: if you've been exposed, you're clear after 14 days symptom-free. If you've had symptoms, you're clear 7 days after onset.
To present with symptoms >21 days after exposure seems inconsistent with current guidelines.
I'd be amazed if there was a genetically sequenced "Morzine variant" and that people in the UK were having their viral RNA sequenced to determine the source of infection. We're struggling to do 10,000 PCR tests/day; genetic sequencing is several orders of magnitude harder/slower than PCR. |
The virus is mutating.
One strain now lasts up to ~7 weeks. |
Is this true? |
Going by his normal posts no, and dont forget a mutation could be worse or even milder |
Well, snowHeads have a duty to stop misinformation being passed on. He should now be banned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| abc wrote: |
I'm not so sure about that.
Looking at the positive/total test ratio, even those WITH symptoms, only about 10-20% are positive. Meaning there's 80-90% of the population still uninfected. We don't have the number of the negative ratio for those WITHOUT symptoms. The latter will be very telling. |
So about 10-20% different from square one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
Probably has been already very much discussed but I don't fancy reading back through 104 pages. Looking to take advantage of the quietness and offers to book our lads trip next March. By which point....surely things will be mostly back to normal! The World can't stay shut down that long.....we hope.
Are there, if any implications for booking flights or accommodation now the shutdown is in place regarding refunds etc in case travel isn't possible by then? Like, you took the gamble. Bad luck. You knew this was happening when you booked?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
swskier posted this earlier
"Haven't booked my flights yet, but have just booked an apartment in Val Thorens, 15-24th Jan.
Sleeps up to 4, although it looks too small for that many, 9 nights coming to the grand total of £315.40 with no payment until 1st Jan 2021, and FREE cancellation until then too.
Will book flights nearer the time, or possibly the train. "
(my capitals)
thread -- https://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=152381
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@Fridge03, If you book anything when it looks likely you will not be able attend for any reason, you probably won't be able to claim.
If you have an existing policy that will still be in place when intend to go, might be worth checking with the insurer. If you get +ve confirmation, print it and keep it safe.
My annual policy expires next Feb, just after the start of the PBBWU. I have already booked on the BBash before the proverbial hit the fan. However, I should still be able to claim if it is obvious that I can't travel before the policy ends.
Probably won't be able to claim for the pre bash, as not yet booked, and the situation is already known, so might be excluded. Will need to check with the insurers when pressing buttons.
I understand from other comments on this, and other threads that most new policies now have an exclusion for pandemics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a thought, whilst writing the above, It doesn't apply to me, but may to a lot of others here.
If you were covered for your cancelled holiday, but have opted (or been given no choice) to re-book at a later date, but that will take place under a renewed policy, will it still be covered if the travel restrictions are still in place?
It may be wise to make a provisional claim on your existing policy, making it clear that you have re-booked in good faith, but would wish to proceed with the claim in the event that it can not go ahead.
Any legal experts wish to advise/comment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@robs1, My understanding is that virus tend to become less virulent over time, if anything. Those strands which are more deadly kill their victims more quickly and so don't get passed on as easily.
But then again, I might be wrong...spanish flu for example, got more deadly but that might have been because the population were in a weaker state to fight off the infection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| snowhound wrote: |
@robs1, My understanding is that virus tend to become less virulent over time, if anything. Those strands which are more deadly kill their victims more quickly and so don't get passed on as easily.
But then again, I might be wrong...spanish flu for example, got more deadly but that might have been because the population were in a weaker state to fight off the infection. |
Yes I think in general that is true.
One interesting point from when we were dairy farmers and its bacteria not virus related was that bacterial infections that were "easy" to cure with anti biotics seemed to crowd out more virulent ones and stopped them causing infections, there was a lot of work done in the states that showed if you removed steph and strep bacteria by treating mastitis with penicillin then cows would suffer a lot more coliform infections which are much harder to treat.
I did see an article the other day that said if people had been infected with a Corona virus infection before it could hide in our cells and slow our response to this virus not sure if that is true but I'm sure there is a lot to learn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Fridge03, I would take the view that anything you pay out for next season (or any other future holidays at this point) is gone and you won't see it again if everything is still going wrong. If it turns out you can claim on your insurance, bonus. If you have a free cancellation offer and the company is still in business, bonus. Etc.
That way, if you see a really good deal, you can take it and accept the risk of losing a little bit of cash. Bear in mind that some companies you can book with now may not be in business by the time you want to travel. I certainly wouldn't be booking anything that can legitimately be left to the last minute, like lift passes, car hire, parking etc. in order to minimise potential losses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
Those people are being “sampled”. Some are people who stay in hospital for other illnesses. Some are medical professionals.
Those numbers were not available to the public. But if the “random sampling” shows we’re approaching herd immunity, we would have heard about it by now!
|
@abc I think it's you that is failing to grasp the point. We are using antigen tests. It just shows if the person currently has the virus. You can't say if we are or aren't close to heard immunity from an antigen test. In fact as immunity increases we would expect to see more negative antigen tests.
Secondly, I don't think you understand what random sampling is. The people being sampled are anything but random. They are generally sick people or frontline NHS workers. We could hypothesise frontline workers have had much more chance to be exposed to the virus so many have had it, recovered, are now immune and hence test negative. We could also hypothesise that the 80-90% test negative because they don't have the virus and never have. The truth is likely somewhere in between, but where we won't know until we have antibody testing and do some real "random sampling".
The hope is that antibody testing will show many more people have had the virus. It's not that hard to see why this could be true (large numbers are asymptomatic, Oxford model, etc.). This would also mean the mortality rate is a lot lower than first thought.
I've been very careful with all my posts to use words like "maybe" and "could" as like I've said to you over and over again we won't know for sure until we have antibody testing. You could be right, maybe only a tiny fraction of the population have had the disease. You don't know this, or have any hard evidence to prove it though, so stop acting like it is fact. Let's wait for antibody testing and then we can see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| Quote: |
Those people are being “sampled”. Some are people who stay in hospital for other illnesses. Some are medical professionals.
Those numbers were not available to the public. But if the “random sampling” shows we’re approaching herd immunity, we would have heard about it by now!
|
@abc I think it's you that is failing to grasp the point. We are using antigen tests. It just shows if the person currently has the virus. You can't say if we are or aren't close to heard immunity from an antigen test. In fact as immunity increases we would expect to see more negative antigen tests.
Secondly, I don't think you understand what random sampling is. The people being sampled are anything but random. They are generally sick people or frontline NHS workers. We could hypothesise frontline workers have had much more chance to be exposed to the virus so many have had it, recovered, are now immune and hence test negative. We could also hypothesise that the 80-90% test negative because they don't have the virus and never have. The truth is likely somewhere in between, but where we won't know until we have antibody testing and do some real "random sampling".
The hope is that antibody testing will show many more people have had the virus. It's not that hard to see why this could be true (large numbers are asymptomatic, Oxford model, etc.). This would also mean the mortality rate is a lot lower than first thought.
I've been very careful with all my posts to use words like "maybe" and "could" as like I've said to you over and over again we won't know for sure until we have antibody testing. You could be right, maybe only a tiny fraction of the population have had the disease. You don't know this, or have any hard evidence to prove it though, so stop acting like it is fact. Let's wait for antibody testing and then we can see. |
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but want to correct some of the facts (because I think it's important to get the science right).
We're currently using a test that looks for the virus's genetic material, vRNA. The type of test is a PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) test that looks for known segments of the virus genome. Once your immune system has cleared the virus, there is no detectable level of vRNA, thus the test comes back negative. However, since viruses are quite adept at hiding within cells, this does require samples to be taken from relevant places (hence why patients are having the backs of their throats swabbed, rather than a blood test).
We're NOT using antibody/antigen tests at present, and they are not distinct tests (at least in common vernacular) - they are are the same thing, just described different ways.
An antibody is what the immune system produces in response to an antigen, which is typically a protein fragment that is foreign. The mammalian immune system is pretty good at learning and remembering, so once it's produced antibodies in response to an antigen, it keeps a few in circulation in case of future infection. Thus it's possible to test for these antibodies, which tell you the patient has seen the relevant antigen. Better still, since antibodies circulate in the bloodstream, it's possible to have home testing. However, you have to work out which antibodies are unique to the relevant antigen, and which could also be triggered by something else, e.g. the common cold. Hence why testing is important (and dragging on so long).
The rate of increase of deaths would sadly suggest this isn't yet widespread in the population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Scarlet, How reliable are those kits? The Economist had a good article yesterday on testing, https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/04/02/an-antibody-test-for-the-novel-coronavirus-will-soon-be-available
"SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests have already been deployed in limited numbers in China, Singapore and South Korea. Several Western governments, including those of America and Britain, have been buying up millions of surplus antibody tests from China for use in their own countries. Several other types of these tests have also been developed by companies around the world. None, however, has yet been approved for widespread use—for, though such tests are reasonably easy to manufacture, ensuring that they give useful and reliable results is taking a lot of effort."
Single source, but usually a good single source?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| snowhound wrote: |
| ...spanish flu for example, got more deadly but that might have been because the population were in a weaker state to fight off the infection. |
I'm working my way slowly through a rather excellent paper, "The 1918 influenza pandemic: 100 years of questions answered and unanswered", Taubenberger, et al.,, the point of which is quite self obvious.
A few salient points,
pp7, "Whereas the 1918 pandemic virus was inherently pathogenic, its subsequent history (e.g., between 1918 and 1946 and after its 1977 reappearance until 2008) was one of apparent viral attenuation over decades of post-pandemic circulation"
+ They suggest that it didn't actually get any more fatal, 1917-1919,
"To explain the apparent paradox of explosively transmissible but largely uncomplicated and nonfatal spring 1918 outbreaks of influenza-like illness, some have postulated that the emerging pandemic virus was originally, in the spring of 1918, of low pathogenicity but became more pathogenic as it circulated in humans (73). The earliest pre-pandemic cases identified in May–August 1918, however, had pandemic HA sequences identical to those seen during the pandemic peaks in late 1918 and in 1919 (3 . These early H1 HAs shared pathogenic properties with H1 HAs found in wild waterfowl influenza A viruses, making hypotheses of evolving viral pathogenesis problematic."
And it's worth bearing in mind that most fatalities were from bacterial respiratory illness, not the virus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Yes, the Economist more trustworthy than most media outlets. What you quote makes sense, once someone has done the hard work designing a reliable and useful test there is a lot of expertise in scaling up manufacture. The issue is regulatory approval, there is a lot of scope for tests not to work as well as hoped and the approval system has to be robust. But I would guess anything Singapore or South Korea has developed to the satisfaction of their own governments are OK (since they are two of the countries who have been prioritising tests) but anything purely for export might never have been properly tested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
@Scarlet, How reliable are those kits? The Economist had a good article yesterday on testing, https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/04/02/an-antibody-test-for-the-novel-coronavirus-will-soon-be-available
"SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests have already been deployed in limited numbers in China, Singapore and South Korea. Several Western governments, including those of America and Britain, have been buying up millions of surplus antibody tests from China for use in their own countries. Several other types of these tests have also been developed by companies around the world. None, however, has yet been approved for widespread use—for, though such tests are reasonably easy to manufacture, ensuring that they give useful and reliable results is taking a lot of effort."
Single source, but usually a good single source? |
No idea. I don't think it was mentioned where the tests were coming from, and tbh I've been a little sceptical since I read that yesterday after then discovering that a reliable test had not yet been deployed. Unless they are just collecting blood samples in the hope that by the time they get them to the lab the testing end will have been sorted? Not sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
I've been very careful with all my posts to use words like "maybe" and "could" as like I've said to you over and over again we won't know for sure until we have antibody testing. You could be right, maybe only a tiny fraction of the population have had the disease. You don't know this, or have any hard evidence to prove it though, so stop acting like it is fact. Let's wait for antibody testing and then we can see. |
I never "acting like it's fact". I merely pointed out many of your hypothesis were based on incomplete data.
We both know perfectly well no one REALLY know the true extent of the disease. Even "experts" are doing their best guess.
But it's glaringly clear to everybody else we have a fundamental difference in how to interpret the incomplete data. You're assuming the best case scenario whenever the data doesn't conclusively say otherwise. I on the other hand support the current mainstream medical professionals' approach, which is if we don't know how bad it is, let's plan for the worst and be surprised if it turns out to be less bad.
That's why I continue to challenge your rosy assumption base on incomplete data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| robs1 wrote: |
| Gerry wrote: |
| Whitegold wrote: |
The virus is mutating.
One strain now lasts up to ~7 weeks. |
Is this true? |
Going by his normal posts no, and dont forget a mutation could be worse or even milder |
I hate to break it to you. There maybe some truth to that.
I came across a report on a medical journal. They studied ONE patient whose test show such a high virus count he should have been dead long ago. Yet he's just "moderately" sick for a very long time. They finally cured him with injection of antigen from another cured patient. They theorize there's a milder mutation of the virus which can still infect people. But as it was only one case, they call for more study of any similar cases.
I'll see if I find the link again.
In China, they've been seeing some small percentage of people showing no symptoms but testing positive for many weeks. They're starting to focus on those cases now the peak rush of the endemic appears to be under control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
You're assuming the best case scenario whenever the data doesn't conclusively say otherwise. I on the other hand support the current mainstream medical professionals' approach, which is if we don't know how bad it is, let's plan for the worst and be surprised if it turns out to be less bad.
|
I think you overestimate my outlook, and our views are not as far away as you think. I've said all along the British government are doing the right thing with the lockdown, and being cautious is the right approach. I did say that one day we MIGHT look back on the economical hit of the current policy being more damaging than the virus, which has been suggested by some experts (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/economic-shutdown-could-kill-coronavirus-experts-warn/).
I would be pretty confident that the mortality rate is lower than we currently estimate, which I think is a view fairly accepted by most people. It seems obvious as 100% of the dead get tested as opposed to the majority of those with no or only moderate symptoms.
I don't think antibody testing will show us that the majority of people have had the virus, or we are close to herd immunity, but it's needed to give us a much clearer picture. If 1% of the population has had the virus that would be around 0.45% death rate, push that number up to 2% of the population and the death rate drops to 0.22%, 5% of the population would be a death rate of 0.08%. Small differences in %age of those that have had the virus can quite drastically change the outlook. Perhaps even more useful would be the analysis comparing risks for different groups.
As well, there is talk that if someone was found to have the antibodies, they could receive an immunity certificate allowing them to go back to more normal life. I'm not quite sure how this would work in practice, but surely the goal has got to be to get people back to daily life as quickly as possible where safe to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| abc wrote: |
I came across a report on a medical journal. They studied ONE patient whose test show such a high virus count he should have been dead long ago. Yet he's just "moderately" sick for a very long time. They finally cured him with injection of antigen from another cured patient. They theorize there's a milder mutation of the virus which can still infect people. But as it was only one case, they call for more study of any similar cases.
I'll see if I find the link again.
In China, they've been seeing some small percentage of people showing no symptoms but testing positive for many weeks. They're starting to focus on those cases now the peak rush of the endemic appears to be under control. |
Are you sure this is COVID you're talking about? I've not seen anything in any journal at all relating to this (and bear in mind that a lot of the papers we're seeing on COVID are direct-published; timelines to get into a journal and go through peer review are typically weeks not days) and it would be major headline news.
I'd also be astonished if an antigen is being injected into anybody for treatment in this way - that's not a conventional treatment approach, more a vaccination approach, and if somebody had demonstrated a successful vaccine, we'd know about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| Quote: |
You're assuming the best case scenario whenever the data doesn't conclusively say otherwise. I on the other hand support the current mainstream medical professionals' approach, which is if we don't know how bad it is, let's plan for the worst and be surprised if it turns out to be less bad.
|
I think you overestimate my outlook, and our views are not as far away as you think. I've said all along the British government are doing the right thing with the lockdown, and being cautious is the right approach. I did say that one day we MIGHT look back on the economical hit of the current policy being more damaging than the virus, which has been suggested by some experts (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/economic-shutdown-could-kill-coronavirus-experts-warn/).
I would be pretty confident that the mortality rate is lower than we currently estimate, which I think is a view fairly accepted by most people. It seems obvious as 100% of the dead get tested as opposed to the majority of those with no or only moderate symptoms.
I don't think antibody testing will show us that the majority of people have had the virus, or we are close to herd immunity, but it's needed to give us a much clearer picture. If 1% of the population has had the virus that would be around 0.45% death rate, push that number up to 2% of the population and the death rate drops to 0.22%, 5% of the population would be a death rate of 0.08%. Small differences in %age of those that have had the virus can quite drastically change the outlook. Perhaps even more useful would be the analysis comparing risks for different groups.
As well, there is talk that if someone was found to have the antibodies, they could receive an immunity certificate allowing them to go back to more normal life. I'm not quite sure how this would work in practice, but surely the goal has got to be to get people back to daily life as quickly as possible where safe to do so. |
It (very approximately) takes 14 days to die from COVID, and deaths have been increasing exponentially. Therefore the denominator for the death rate shouldn't be today's case count, but the case count as of 2 weeks ago. In the scenario where it's 1% of the population infected today, it was probably about 0.2% 2 weeks ago, which means the death rate is 3,000/(0.2%*70m) which is just over 2%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@boarder2020, the Scottish medical officer the other day used the helpful approximation that the "real" number infected is around 1000 times the number of deaths. For the whole UK with just under 3000 deaths as of yesterday, that means 3 million infected or slightly under 5% of the population.
But of course @snowdave's point applies, the 1000x rule of thumb is for the numbers now not when yesterday's deaths got infected, so it doesn't imply a 0.1% death rate.
Neither though is it likely to include the possibility of significant numbers getting it so mildly they have never been counted. Estimates for how many those might be vary wildly, and based on speculation not fact, and will be an important thing to know once a decent antibody test is available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@beenative, thanks for that link, he describes it well - always nice to see some science in the discussion. Sometimes it feels a bit like trying to inject financial facts into debate between travel "journalists" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@snowdave, Prof Bedford is great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| snowdave wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
I came across a report on a medical journal. They studied ONE patient whose test show such a high virus count he should have been dead long ago. Yet he's just "moderately" sick for a very long time. They finally cured him with injection of antigen from another cured patient. They theorize there's a milder mutation of the virus which can still infect people. But as it was only one case, they call for more study of any similar cases.
I'll see if I find the link again.
In China, they've been seeing some small percentage of people showing no symptoms but testing positive for many weeks. They're starting to focus on those cases now the peak rush of the endemic appears to be under control. |
Are you sure this is COVID you're talking about? I've not seen anything in any journal at all relating to this (and bear in mind that a lot of the papers we're seeing on COVID are direct-published; timelines to get into a journal and go through peer review are typically weeks not days) and it would be major headline news.
I'd also be astonished if an antigen is being injected into anybody for treatment in this way - that's not a conventional treatment approach, more a vaccination approach, and if somebody had demonstrated a successful vaccine, we'd know about it. |
I didn't try super hard, but I lost track of how I came across the paper. So not yet able to find the paper again. Yes, it's a "direct publish" paper. It's in one of the fairly well known medical journal. Unfortunately, I couldn't come up with a unique keyword to do a wide search.
Am I sure it's Covid-19??? As sure as the paper's author! What else do you suspect that paper was about? Ebola???
One error in my typing (blame auto-correct): they inject the patient with blood known to contain antibody from a cured patient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
I think you overestimate my outlook, and our views are not as far away as you think. I've said all along the British government are doing the right thing with the lockdown, and being cautious is the right approach. I did say that one day we MIGHT look back on the economical hit of the current policy being more damaging than the virus, which has been suggested by some experts (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/economic-shutdown-could-kill-coronaviru-experts-warn/).
|
Some may say it's a matter of glass half full vs half empty. I'm incline to think it's more fundamental than that. Though on the other hand, I always consider glass half-empty vs half-full IS rather fundamental. 
That said, it's merely a thought experiment. So I'll continue...
There's no doubt (for most people) we'll eventually find out the large scale lockdown are too broad, primarily because we didn't have time to fine tune which restriction is truly beneficial vs which is not. We will also identify what we SHOULD HAVE DONE MUCH EARLIER. But given we had failed to do many of the steps we clearly should have done, we're at this junction of doing nothing vs doing something that clearly harm the economy.
(If we don't know how much is in the glass, we don't know if we should empty some to reach half empty, or add some to reach half full!)
In my "thought experiment" thread, I asked if people would go skiing with our current understanding of the virus behavior. What I'm getting at, which the government NEVER mentioned, is if we allow the virus to "run its course" naturally, people WILL end up self-isolate and business would still come to a halt, albeit to a lessor degree. And it MAY create its own panic once the hospitals are overwhelmed and patients dying on the street outside! That was very much the situation in Wuhan right before the government there locked down the city. Part of the lockdown was to prevent the virus from spreading as the panic crowd tried to escape the "death city". But it also prevented the true horror of the situation from being known outside of the city. Now that the lockdown was about to lift, some of those are coming out in bits and pieces, despite the tight censorship. THE CITY WAS PANICKING!
So yeah, the lockdown is hurting the economy. But without it, the economy would still hurt just as badly IF there's a mass panic from the virus itself. Not having a clear idea of the mortality, it's not an easy forecast WHETHER there'll be a mass panic. Most of the government chose to have a controlled panic (lockdown) rather than to wait for the potentially uncontrollable panic by allowing the virus to run its course. Though there're a few countries holding out for a more measured approach. We'll see how well that works for them.
It's all good to spend a few brain cell to contemplate the matter. But with so little solid data, it's borderline imagination than estimation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
But with so little solid data, it's borderline imagination than estimation.
|
Yes it is, but thinking one's way through different scenarios is worthwhile, in my mind, anyway. Some people can't bear that sort of "pointless and upsetting speculation", others find it interesting. And it passes the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| abc wrote: |
| snowdave wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
I came across a report on a medical journal. They studied ONE patient whose test show such a high virus count he should have been dead long ago. Yet he's just "moderately" sick for a very long time. They finally cured him with injection of antigen from another cured patient. They theorize there's a milder mutation of the virus which can still infect people. But as it was only one case, they call for more study of any similar cases.
I'll see if I find the link again.
In China, they've been seeing some small percentage of people showing no symptoms but testing positive for many weeks. They're starting to focus on those cases now the peak rush of the endemic appears to be under control. |
Are you sure this is COVID you're talking about? I've not seen anything in any journal at all relating to this (and bear in mind that a lot of the papers we're seeing on COVID are direct-published; timelines to get into a journal and go through peer review are typically weeks not days) and it would be major headline news.
I'd also be astonished if an antigen is being injected into anybody for treatment in this way - that's not a conventional treatment approach, more a vaccination approach, and if somebody had demonstrated a successful vaccine, we'd know about it. |
I didn't try super hard, but I lost track of how I came across the paper. So not yet able to find the paper again. Yes, it's a "direct publish" paper. It's in one of the fairly well known medical journal. Unfortunately, I couldn't come up with a unique keyword to do a wide search.
Am I sure it's Covid-19??? As sure as the paper's author! What else do you suspect that paper was about? Ebola???
One error in my typing (blame auto-correct): they inject the patient with blood known to contain antibody from a cured patient. |
Since you were talking about antigen when you meant antibody, I wasn't sure what you meant, hence why I didn't think it was COVID. As UANN says, I think this is convalescent plasma, which in a couple of studies, _might_ have an effect. And yes, tho' I think you may have been sarcastic, Ebola is a reference case for this kind of treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Could be. But since I can't locate the paper again, I can't be sure.
In any case, don't expect too much about the treatment. The paper was to report the virus behavior in a patient having mild symptoms but high virus load for 7 weeks. The treatment was but a footnote at the very end of the paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@boarder2020, @abc, while the cure (via hit on the economy) might turn out to be worse than the disease the truth is that all decisions were having to be made without knowing.
At the most basic level, of the restrictions in place we have no idea which are most effective and which are marginal. All we have is some evidence from places like Italy that all of them together appear to be achieving something.
It is important for someone to be analysing that though, in order to devise a way in which the economy can start up again without immediately repeating the exponential infection problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@j b, From @nicktolhurst
German media now discussing research from their Coronavirus experience that *suggests* virus spreads far more in mass gatherings than previously thought..but less in places like shops or via surfaces.
NB: it still spreads in all - but relative dangers being studied. This suggests relative weight of people:
1. Density
2. Proximity
3. Numbers
Far more important than initially thought. If true this greatly influences our “exit strategies” on Coronavirus ie. no immediate return to mass public transport or mass sport/cultural events etc.
This has many other implications:
It suggests that lockdowns could be actually far more successful than previous hopes BUT that various pre lockdown practices should be delayed as long as possible - potentially till 2021.
Note this is based on current German thinking.
In other words - societies need to think about not just short term containment of virus but on changing medium term practices.
If this research holds up expect to see incentivising home working + slower phased return to public events than previously thought over next 2 years. This research also seems to confirm why London has remained so far ahead of rest of the UK in Coronavirus cases. It’s the one place where human density, numbers & proximity could not be mitigated so easily by individual actions until the lockdown.
Same applies to New York.
This would seem to provide an explanation as to why Cheltenham was so much more dangerous than the Liverpool-Madrid game...even tho Madrid fans came from CV hotspot.
It was mixed mass nature of Cheltenham that was so dangerous not the *mere* presence of some infected people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course it could be the virual loading of mass gatherings that has a big impact, ie a group of already infected people who have few or no symptoms creating a lot of virual material in the air in a small space as against maybe one person in a supermarket, Cheltenham being outside it would go against that theory , except of course loads of people squashing into bars
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks @under a new name (sorry, have been off line for a few hours cooking dinner and chatting with family). That German commentary is very interesting.
My take is that if Covid-19 is like other respiratory viral infections, then direct airborn transmission is a bigger proportion than via surfaces. And airborn transmission depends on a mixture of proximity, time, and production of aerosols (i.e. coughing/talking).
But that does suggest that opening up retail trading, involving only transitory interactions with others with human density controlled as is now being done in supermarkets, is feasible with a positive impact on the manufacturing/distribution behind it. It also suggests people must not stop to chat on the street!
Bars, restaurants, entertainment may need to stay closed though: in all those people stay in close proximity for significant periods of time. Workplaces may be able to reconfigure so people "in work" are adequately separated while other colleagues work from home part of the time. Potentially similar for education.
As I said, I just hope someone is getting definitive information on what is feasible.
At the end of your quote: is there evidence that the Cheltenham race meeting was a hot spot? It is frequently quoted as a mass meeting that could have been cancelled but wasn't but I haven't read about large numbers of infections being traced to it. While I am sure racegoers may have forgotten good social distancing etiquette in the spirit of the moment, the fact that it is in the open air should mean aerosols will have dissipated quite quickly. But never having attended, perhaps spectator behaviour is more risky than I can envisage!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
).
