The big Coronavirus thread

1…450451453455456…1346

Comments

  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    ddraver said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    Anyone seen anything that has got to the bottom of the £15bn for PPE supply?

    Nothing useful. I have noted that the same people who were complaining about the shortage are now complaining abut the cost.
    I'm not complaining about paying what was needed, but if we hadn't had a shortage, we wouldn't have needed to spend so much in a hurry when prices were highest. Would have been ridiculous to not buy them when needed given the money being thrown out everywhere.

    I saw an article saying that France were using 45 million masks a week, so several billion items of PPE sounds reasonable for the UK to fulfill demand and rebuild a stockpile.

    And France will be in a similar situation having burnt a billion masks.
    It's a shame reusable ones didn't get used or approved.
    A lot of people in France had abandoned wearing masks in shops a few weeks back, and those that were, were almost always the reusable fabric ("cool") masks. I think countries handling this sensibly allow a certain amount of leeway to allow people to settle in to what they think is reasonable.

    donc, c'etait dans une Zone Vert...
    I have noticed in France that big corporate chains like Decathlon and McDonald's have been able to enforce a mask rule whereas smaller shops have been afraid of losing clients. I went to McDonald's on the way back from holiday. It was like a maze and no matter where you went you were in the wrong 'zone'.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Claire Cohen in the Telegraph- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/09/astonished-had-covid-19-without-symptoms/

    'For two weeks in March I’d had a cough'

    'Turns out, I’m likely one of the two-thirds of asymptomatic people identified by the ONS this week, for whom coronavirus comes and goes unnoticed.'
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,703
    nickice said:

    Claire Cohen in the Telegraph- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/09/astonished-had-covid-19-without-symptoms/

    'For two weeks in March I’d had a cough'

    'Turns out, I’m likely one of the two-thirds of asymptomatic people identified by the ONS this week, for whom coronavirus comes and goes unnoticed.'

    If you had a two week cough when everyone was talking about persistent coughs can you really be said to be asymptomatic, or just ignoring your mild symptoms.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    Claire Cohen in the Telegraph- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/09/astonished-had-covid-19-without-symptoms/

    'For two weeks in March I’d had a cough'

    'Turns out, I’m likely one of the two-thirds of asymptomatic people identified by the ONS this week, for whom coronavirus comes and goes unnoticed.'

    If you had a two week cough when everyone was talking about persistent coughs can you really be said to be asymptomatic, or just ignoring your mild symptoms.
    Eh I actually posted it because I found it quite amusing for that exact reason. She did then say that her two-week cough 'wasn't persistent'.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,703
    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    Claire Cohen in the Telegraph- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/09/astonished-had-covid-19-without-symptoms/

    'For two weeks in March I’d had a cough'

    'Turns out, I’m likely one of the two-thirds of asymptomatic people identified by the ONS this week, for whom coronavirus comes and goes unnoticed.'

    If you had a two week cough when everyone was talking about persistent coughs can you really be said to be asymptomatic, or just ignoring your mild symptoms.
    Eh I actually posted it because I found it quite amusing for that exact reason. She did then say that her two-week cough 'wasn't persistent'.
    I'm struggling a bit today. 😕
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,581
    edited July 2020
    Try again in the right thread...
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,274


    And all it took was Sunak getting some bad press for not wearing one 😀

  • sungod
    sungod Posts: 16,561
    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-coronavirus.html

    NY Times on "Sweden Has Become the World’s Cautionary Tale"

    This is what has happened: Not only have thousands more people died than in neighboring countries that imposed lockdowns, but Sweden’s economy has fared little better.

    “They literally gained nothing,” said Jacob F. Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “It’s a self-inflicted wound, and they have no economic gains.”



    Now, I appreciate I have a horse in this, but I guess it's worth reitterating.

    Here is one takeaway with potentially universal import: It is simplistic to portray government actions such as quarantines as the cause of economic damage. The real culprit is the virus itself.


    ie. Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not
    If Sweden is a cautionary tale, what's New York?
    Sure.

    I mean, I know you're a fan of pointing out whataboutery...

    What's wrong with the reasoning in the article?
    it required me to register to read which is a step too far. I know it is a national paper, but it seemed odd for a paper with New York in its name to ignore the more local example. Call it whataboutery if it makes you happy.

    you haven't read it yet state "odd for a paper with New York in its name to ignore the more local example"

    as someone who reads it daily, i know that the nyt has never ignored the local situation
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 18,943
    The US has just said 'fuck it'


    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,743
    Check out this week’s Lunch with the FT. With Fauci.

    It’s very good.

    _
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    More information on T-Cell immune response (some of the replies are more informative than the video)

  • fenix
    fenix Posts: 5,437
    Isn't he about as resoected As Corbyns brother ? Lots of claims that he's lied about ?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,703
    Well that's a bit grim.

    https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/11/young-man-died-coronavirus-trying-catch-covid-party-prove-was-hoax-12976195/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,743
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/12/immunity-to-covid-19-could-be-lost-in-months-uk-study-suggests

    If this is true then it puts a rather big hole in “herd immunity”
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,274
    edited July 2020
    Means I can catch it again before I'm over the last bout? Fuck.

    Given the Sikora bit above about T cells, there's still hope, but as it's early days still, I'm erring on the side of caution regarding putting myself in situations with a relatively increased risk.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,743
    From the article:


    Prof Jonathan Heeney, a virologist at the University of Cambridge, said the study confirmed a growing body of evidence that immunity to Covid-19 is short-lived. “Most importantly, it puts another nail in the coffin of the dangerous concept of herd immunity,” he said.
    “I cannot underscore how important it is that the public understands that getting infected by this virus is not a good thing. Some of the public, especially the youth, have become somewhat cavalier about getting infected, thinking that they would contribute to herd immunity. Not only will they place themselves at risk, and others, by getting infected, and losing immunity, they may even put themselves at greater risk of more severe lung disease if they get infected again in the years to come.”



    For you, Coopster.
    _
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    rick_chasey said:

    From the article:


    Prof Jonathan Heeney, a virologist at the University of Cambridge, said the study confirmed a growing body of evidence that immunity to Covid-19 is short-lived. “Most importantly, it puts another nail in the coffin of the dangerous concept of herd immunity,” he said.
    “I cannot underscore how important it is that the public understands that getting infected by this virus is not a good thing. Some of the public, especially the youth, have become somewhat cavalier about getting infected, thinking that they would contribute to herd immunity. Not only will they place themselves at risk, and others, by getting infected, and losing immunity, they may even put themselves at greater risk of more severe lung disease if they get infected again in the years to come.”



    For you, Coopster.

    Two points(keeping it simple as it is you):

    1) If this is true, any vaccine is going to be equally as impotent. I'll leave you to think about how that will affect you but it means you won't be leaving your house again for the rest of your miserable life.

    2) Anti-body immunity has been known to be short-lived for a while now. Anti-bodies have a half-life of about 3 weeks which is where this knowledge has come from. However, memory T-Cells seem to carry better long term immunity, and while they won't stop you getting infected again, the infection will have less, in any symptoms.

    It goes back to my original approach, we can't beat this without significant medical advancement, which is not on the horizon, so just have to live with it. So the intentional trashing of the economy and huge govt spending has all been a waste.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,743
    Ah, sorry.

    I forgot the reading comprehension is lacking.
    _
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,602
    rick_chasey said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/12/immunity-to-covid-19-could-be-lost-in-months-uk-study-suggests

    If this is true then it puts a rather big hole in “herd immunity”

    There was a professor on the news just now talking about. He said it isn't unusual with viruses for antibodies to reduce over time and therefore for those who had more mild infections to lose immunity.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,743
    Pross said:

    rick_chasey said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/12/immunity-to-covid-19-could-be-lost-in-months-uk-study-suggests

    If this is true then it puts a rather big hole in “herd immunity”

    There was a professor on the news just now talking about. He said it isn't unusual with viruses for antibodies to reduce over time and therefore for those who had more mild infections to lose immunity.
    Which is why the 'herd immunity' "the dead will be dead anyway" approach was always wrong.
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,274
    rick_chasey said:

    Pross said:

    rick_chasey said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/12/immunity-to-covid-19-could-be-lost-in-months-uk-study-suggests

    If this is true then it puts a rather big hole in “herd immunity”

    There was a professor on the news just now talking about. He said it isn't unusual with viruses for antibodies to reduce over time and therefore for those who had more mild infections to lose immunity.
    Which is why the 'herd immunity' "the dead will be dead anyway" approach was always wrong.
    Take out the "herd immunity" bit, and the logic still stands for those who think it's more essential to carry on with normal life without any changes.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,743
    edited July 2020
    kingstongraham said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Pross said:

    rick_chasey said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/12/immunity-to-covid-19-could-be-lost-in-months-uk-study-suggests

    If this is true then it puts a rather big hole in “herd immunity”

    There was a professor on the news just now talking about. He said it isn't unusual with viruses for antibodies to reduce over time and therefore for those who had more mild infections to lose immunity.
    Which is why the 'herd immunity' "the dead will be dead anyway" approach was always wrong.
    Take out the "herd immunity" bit, and the logic still stands for those who think it's more essential to carry on with normal life without any changes.
    The problem is that most people don't want to get it, so the disease has already changed behaviours.

    You can't just pretend it's not there. People won't and aren't doing that.

    It's a curious over-statement of what governments are doing. They are following this virus and the societal response to it. They are not leading it.
    _
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    rick_chasey said:

    Ah, sorry.

    I forgot the reading comprehension is lacking.

    I don't like the way he expresses it but Coopster is right. If antibodies don't last long then a vaccine will not be effective. His case has always been 'there's not much we can do about it so we should continue as close to normal as possible'. This supports that case more than it does yours.

    There is a strong possibility that even if the antibodies don't last a reinfection would be more akin to the common cold. Yes, it does mean herd immunity is not possible but it also means that this virus is coming for everyone so we might as well just accept it.

    What was the lack of reading comprehension on his part?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,274
    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Ah, sorry.

    I forgot the reading comprehension is lacking.

    I don't like the way he expresses it but Coopster is right. If antibodies don't last long then a vaccine will not be effective. His case has always been 'there's not much we can do about it so we should continue as close to normal as possible'. This supports that case more than it does yours.

    There is a strong possibility that even if the antibodies don't last a reinfection would be more akin to the common cold. Yes, it does mean herd immunity is not possible but it also means that this virus is coming for everyone so we might as well just accept it.

    What was the lack of reading comprehension on his part?
    Coopster's position has been that we need to protect the vulnerable while getting on with establishing herd immunity in the rest of the population during the summer, so we can get back to normal. Without herd immunity that doesn't really work.

    I don't understand why vaccines giving immunity lasting a few months would be useless? Can someone explain?
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    kingstongraham said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Ah, sorry.

    I forgot the reading comprehension is lacking.

    I don't like the way he expresses it but Coopster is right. If antibodies don't last long then a vaccine will not be effective. His case has always been 'there's not much we can do about it so we should continue as close to normal as possible'. This supports that case more than it does yours.

    There is a strong possibility that even if the antibodies don't last a reinfection would be more akin to the common cold. Yes, it does mean herd immunity is not possible but it also means that this virus is coming for everyone so we might as well just accept it.

    What was the lack of reading comprehension on his part?
    Coopster's position has been that we need to protect the vulnerable while getting on with establishing herd immunity in the rest of the population during the summer, so we can get back to normal. Without herd immunity that doesn't really work.

    I don't understand why vaccines giving immunity lasting a few months would be useless? Can someone explain?

    I think Coopster's position is probably survival of the fittest but he wanted to protect the vulnerable in order to make it more palatable.

    Do you mean that people could have regular boosters? I suppose that could work and there's always the evidence that even though the macaques in the Oxford trial still became infected, they had a very mild version of the disease. So, although it won't stop infection it will help with symptoms. However, even a cold-causing coronavirus can have a high fatality rate in a care home.

    The other problem is that vaccines are not particularly effective in older members of the population and these are the people who, generally, tend to suffer the most.

    If reinfection is a possibility (maybe in a few months or years) herd immunity from vaccination is not possible unless it's 100% compulsory and is repeated every few months (or however long antibodies last) and I doubt many people will agree with that especially as it's asymptomatic in most people.
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    kingstongraham said:

    nickice said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Ah, sorry.

    I forgot the reading comprehension is lacking.

    I don't like the way he expresses it but Coopster is right. If antibodies don't last long then a vaccine will not be effective. His case has always been 'there's not much we can do about it so we should continue as close to normal as possible'. This supports that case more than it does yours.

    There is a strong possibility that even if the antibodies don't last a reinfection would be more akin to the common cold. Yes, it does mean herd immunity is not possible but it also means that this virus is coming for everyone so we might as well just accept it.

    What was the lack of reading comprehension on his part?
    Coopster's position has been that we need to protect the vulnerable while getting on with establishing herd immunity in the rest of the population during the summer, so we can get back to normal. Without herd immunity that doesn't really work.

    I don't understand why vaccines giving immunity lasting a few months would be useless? Can someone explain?
    It is a sliding scale of practicality. If it lasts a year then getting the population inoculated once a year is clearly possible because we do this with flu. If it lasts two months then we need to inoculate the population 6 times a year again possibly doable but likely expensive. If it lasts a month or a couple of weeks then I will let you think about the logic of that.

    This is before we compare who gets a flu jab versus who might need to get a covid jab as if it is everyone then the above numbers just got more difficult. Public health is all just a numbers game to try to achieve the best outcome with a fixed amount of money that a population will bear through general taxation. Those that think the pot is endless don't live in the real world.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,646
    The T-cell stuff is a lot more positive. I still find it interesting why the virus seems to be dying out in London.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,274
    But if those of us who have already had it get exposed to it naturally every few months, couldn't that potentially boost the immunity without major symptoms? Those who are at risk get vaccinated with boosters when needed.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 18,943
    Booked a holiday yet?
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,646
    tailwindhome said:

    Booked a holiday yet?

    No. Turns out it is tough to holiday in the UK.


Categories