 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I’d like to know what we picked up in Montgenevre both this February half term and last. Last year’s was far worse and more akin to the symptoms of covid-19. Our temperatures went through the roof (I was hallucinating at one point), really horrible dry and persistent cough and real trouble breathing. This went on for weeks after and didn’t respond to antibiotic which would suggest a virus. The symptoms this year were breathlessness and a similar cough but I recovered quite quickly. Husband wasn’t so fortunate and it took him many weeks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@bambionskiis, I believe the Abbott (i.e. reputable pharma company) antibody tests are now available to the general public for about £100 a person. That's one way to find out. If you're NHS staff then you can get it much cheaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| snowdave wrote: |
| @bambionskiis, I believe the Abbott (i.e. reputable pharma company) antibody tests are now available to the general public for about £100 a person. That's one way to find out. If you're NHS staff then you can get it much cheaper. |
What is the accuracy of it ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@robs1, Good. Albeit, like all these things, it depends on the test circumstances. Antibody tests generally work better a few weeks after exposure.
ABBOTT PARK, Ill., May 8, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Abbott (NYSE: ABT) announced today new research, published in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, which found that its SARS-CoV-2 IgG lab-based serology blood test had 99.9% specificity and 100% sensitivity for detecting the IgG antibody in patients 17 days or more after symptoms began. Independent research was conducted by University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle.
Source paper here https://jcm.asm.org/content/early/2020/05/07/JCM.00941-20
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Sounds good, mrs is NHS and friend who is an ICU nurse at guys and who picked it up in Morzine and was tested positve has said all staff there are about to be tested and says all nhs will be soon. Hopefully we did pick it up in les contamines
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Ghost Dog, yes, I think that's the one, there's at least one other provider (which offers a much bigger NHS discount) that I'm using.
@robs1, to the best of my knowledge, the widespread NHS tests that are starting up are the classic PCR test, not an antibody test. My wife has to pay for the antibody test herself. Still, after deductions for tax, it is about £25 each for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Naive question. If folk test positive for covid antibody what are they planning to do differently with that knowledge?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Csb123 wrote: |
| Naive question. If folk test positive for covid antibody what are they planning to do differently with that knowledge? |
They can stop all the hand wringing (with soapy water)! 
On second thought, they may get the flu instead!
More seriously, they can plan to go on holidays wherever is reachable and open. They can also go back to work in the office (if they work indoors)
They can also hug their grandparents (or grand kids).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Err, has the science moved on to thinking you can't get this again once you have antibodies?
So they're doing it because they're afraid of getting it if they already haven't? But if they have will be happy?
Does the antibody test come with a certificate that employers and foreign immigration desks recognise and allow them in then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
Err, has the science moved on to thinking you can't get this again once you have antibodies?
|
No. It hasn't "moved on". In fact, it hasn't moved anywhere.
There's some doubt of the antibody's effectiveness in preventing infection due to some cases of suspected "re-infection" of supposedly cured patients getting sick again. But the "consensus" was the original test of COVID-19 was wrong, i.e. the patient were still sick the whole time. How they reach such "consensus" isn't clear to me, except the small number seems consiSostent with the false negative rate of the Covid-19 test.
So, it hasn't "moved". The believe still is if you have the antibody you won't get it again.
But that's assuming you trust the antibody test is accurate AND SELECTIVE enough to cover all the current variance of the virus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know that now is not the best time for skiing, especially if you live in a country without a ski resort, like me, but i hope it will end till the end of the year because I have plans for January
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| abc wrote: |
| Quote: |
Err, has the science moved on to thinking you can't get this again once you have antibodies?
|
No. It hasn't "moved on". In fact, it hasn't moved anywhere.
There's some doubt of the antibody's effectiveness in preventing infection due to some cases of suspected "re-infection" of supposedly cured patients getting sick again. But the "consensus" was the original test of COVID-19 was wrong, i.e. the patient were still sick the whole time. How they reach such "consensus" isn't clear to me, except the small number seems consiSostent with the false negative rate of the Covid-19 test.
So, it hasn't "moved". The believe still is if you have the antibody you won't get it again.
But that's assuming you trust the antibody test is accurate AND SELECTIVE enough to cover all the current variance of the virus. |
Latest Sera tests in development are hugely accurate according to a medical supplies friend of mine, and they should also be widely available quickly apparently as the manufacturing & certification capability is readily available.
So good news.
I can't understand why the lockdown release plans by governments don't allow for people with verifiable positive Sera tests, and people of different age groups (I.e. younger people with consequent less risk) to be treated differently I.e. to be 'released' from lockdown earlier.
I.e. if they are pursuing a policy of progressive herd immunity, (& all actions and utterances of public health officials seems to substantiate this), surely it should make sense to expose younger age cohorts more earlier, while cocooning the vulnerable for longer!?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I read an article published this morning which was saying the NHS don’t have tests for antibodies yet? How Come the discrepancy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@horgand, agree that a young and old strategy would make sense. But in a way it depends on those antibody tests actually being approved, manufacturing and distributed.
For example the very low risk in schoolchildren, and their reported low efficiency in spreading the virus, means opening schools should be a priority. Particularly since keeping children at home is a huge drag on opening other activities. But that risk is shared with teachers, some of whom will be (or perceive themselves to be) at much higher risk. At the same time there are fragments of data from around the world, and numerous anecdotes on this forum, suggesting a much larger fraction of the population have had mild Covid than those in the official statistics. If teachers were tested for the presence of antibodies, the staffing challenge of opening schools could be largely overcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@brianatab, Thanks for that link. Will be good to see the peer review of the Vit D paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| NickyJ wrote: |
| I read an article published this morning which was saying the NHS don’t have tests for antibodies yet? How Come the discrepancy? |
the missing word is 'cheap'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
From the WHO:
There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.
So, what is the purpose of an antibody test?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| queenie pretty please wrote: |
From the WHO:
There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.
So, what is the purpose of an antibody test? |
I dont know of any disease that the body has overcome that you become I'll from again apart from malaria, but I'm not sure your system actually overcomes it.
However as with flu this virus looks like it mutates so we can catch the new version but that applies after a vaccine as it does with flu.
We will simply have to live with as we do flu, cancer and lots of other risks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| queenie pretty please wrote: |
From the WHO:
There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.
So, what is the purpose of an antibody test? |
It provides data about the spread of the disease and how many people have had it.
Also, "no evidence" doesn't mean that they aren't protected from a second infection, simply that not enough time has passed yet to conclude one way or the other. Assumptions are made based on knowledge of other coronaviruses, which do appear to protect against second infections. This one may or may not behave the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mr.Egg wrote: |
| NickyJ wrote: |
| I read an article published this morning which was saying the NHS don’t have tests for antibodies yet? How Come the discrepancy? |
the missing word is 'cheap' |
So are you saying that the article
| Quote: |
| The test for Covid-19 we have at present only tells us whether someone is infected at the time the test is carried out. We haven't yet, in the NHS, got a reliable test that reveals whether someone had it in the past, but we hope to have one in the next few weeks. |
Should have had cheap in it and is inaccurate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@NickyJ, to the best of my knowledge that article is correct - antibody tests are not available (at least on a mass scale) on the NHS. There can be a gap of days to years from a treatment or test being available, to it being available on the NHS. The test I’m referring to above has only just been released so will take at least a few days for the NHS to validate and approve if it wants to (which it may not!)
From the NHS/NICE perspective my guess is that some of the questions asked above are the key ones - I.e. what are we going to do with the information? Until it’s clear that IgG antibodies (which is the type of antibody the Abbott test looks for) confer immunity, or that clearing the infection confers immunity, then it’s very hard to make a case for NICE to approve the expense, no matter how accurate the test (and I’ve linked to the latest research on the relevant test accuracy, published on Friday).
Whilst the WHO is saying there is no evidence that antibodies = COVID immunity, the converse is also true, there’s no evidence that they don’t. The evidence for second COVID infections is rare enough that I’m prepared to view it as unrepresentative, and I can’t easily think of another viral infection where the body clears it and can then be reinfected by the same strain. However, I’m clearly in the realms of vaguely informed personal opinion rather than clear evidence at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@pamw, are u still around. Hope u r well. Late discussion bcause son moved home, we're longin for skiing. Told him about u and voice of resoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| queenie pretty please wrote: |
From the WHO:
There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.
So, what is the purpose of an antibody test? |
A reliable antibody test will give a better picture of the rate of infection as many have been asymptomatic or suffering from very mild symptoms which may or may not have been coronavirus.
As this is a novel virus, there is no evidence that antibodies give lasting immunity, but there is also no evidence that they don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the assumption is fairly strong that antibodies will give a degree of immunity.
What is uncertain is the degrees of immunity and the length of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| queenie pretty please wrote: |
From the WHO:
There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.
So, what is the purpose of an antibody test? |
They also said that stopping international travel wouldn’t slow the spread of the virus. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Scarlet wrote: |
| queenie pretty please wrote: |
From the WHO:
There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.
So, what is the purpose of an antibody test? |
It provides data about the spread of the disease and how many people have had it.
Also, "no evidence" doesn't mean that they aren't protected from a second infection, simply that not enough time has passed yet to conclude one way or the other. Assumptions are made based on knowledge of other coronaviruses, which do appear to protect against second infections. This one may or may not behave the same way. |
There is evidence coming out of research from S.Korea (who have been very successful in containing the virus) that people who have been infected don't get reinfected
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid19-reinfection-immune-response
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| geoffers wrote: |
| Scarlet wrote: |
| queenie pretty please wrote: |
From the WHO:
There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.
So, what is the purpose of an antibody test? |
It provides data about the spread of the disease and how many people have had it.
Also, "no evidence" doesn't mean that they aren't protected from a second infection, simply that not enough time has passed yet to conclude one way or the other. Assumptions are made based on knowledge of other coronaviruses, which do appear to protect against second infections. This one may or may not behave the same way. |
There is evidence coming out of research from S.Korea (who have been very successful in containing the virus) that people who have been infected don't get reinfected
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid19-reinfection-immune-response |
That's not what the article is saying. It's saying those that tested positive again having had the infection and presumed to be reinfected actually had dead virus and were not infectious. That's not the same as people who have been infected don't get re-infected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
