Can we cruise again?

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

The question is one of reasonableness.  Covid 19 is new so nobody really knows what the man on the Clapham Omnibus will eventually consider reasonable in mortality rates.  Until such time as we do, LAs are rightly taking a precautionary approach.

 

Right now, we don't even know what the eventual mortality rates will be. We know it it has killed in excess of 35000 in the UK in a little over two months.  All the experts accept that the true figure will turn out to be much higher when excess mortality is looked at (in the same way flu deaths are estimated).  So we know that right now the virus is a significantly bigger problem than seasonal flu, despite a lockdown.  Modellers have estimated was the mortality rates would have been without the lockdown and they are frankly horrifying. 

 

Even with the measures taken, we are unlikely to come out of this with less than 100,000 attributable deaths this year alone.  THIS IS NOT THE FLU!

Yesterday worldwide was the biggest rise in covid numbers they also said 50k ish is the excess mortality figures for the UK [google] so this virus is nowhere near finished we have to be careful otherwise we will become a stat and we dont want that do we?

[Arthur Marshall]

37 minutes ago, Paddle said:

I think you've got that completely upside down. The best way to protect the vulnerable is for them to hide away and for the rest of us to get it as quickly as possible. Then the vulnerable can come out of hiding.

That only works, if having had it, you're immune.  You may not be.  There is no way of protecting the vulnerable, because that's what being vulnerable means.  You can isolate everybody in the country for six months and it will make no difference to the virus' existence. It's now just something we have to bear in mind and live with. People have got to get to grips with the fact that all these rules and edicts having nothing to do with protecting you from infection, but stopping the NHS crashing completely. As that's been done, the rest is pointless.

[Richard10002]

3 hours ago, Flyboy said:

Seems clear enough to me.   This is what CaRT says :-  Undertake short boating trips only– avoiding using locks and any staff-operated structures if possible – providing, as per current government guidance, you do not stay away from home overnight and return to your home mooring (where you have one).

Thats why I included the word "think"

 

I knew someone would put me straight if I was wrong.......

 

Seems pretty clear to me now ?

[Richard10002]

3 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

Getting cross at him about what CRT are asking is pointless unless he comes onto CRT waters.

   

 

In fairness, I haven't seen the guidelines from The Bridgewater Canal Company, and am not even planning any short cruises.

 

So I was basing my response on CRT's advice/guidelines, (without bothering to double check), and was wrong!!

 

   

 

 

 

[Richard10002]

42 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That only works, if having had it, you're immune.  You may not be.  

The evidence coming out of South Korean research is that you almost certainly are immune, and that tests that suggest reinfection, are merely finding old and dead bit of the virus's RNA, (whatever that is). Dr John Cambell and the chap from MedCram talk about it in their very recent Youtube videos:

 

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Richard10002

[TheBiscuits]

42 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I haven't seen the guidelines from The Bridgewater Canal Company, and am not even planning any short cruises.

13 May 2020

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Communication to Bridgewater Canal Boaters

Further to our previous correspondence, the Bridgewater Canal team has continued to work hard to make sure our response to the COVID-19 pandemic is consistent with the government guidelines. Our main priority has always been the health and wellbeing of our staff, customers, and the general public who use our canal and towpath.

As you are aware, we have not specifically prohibited people from accessing their boats but have always requested that customers adhere to the guidelines and social distancing measures. The canal and Bridgewater Way/towpath remain open, as do all Bridgewater Canal Company facilities.

The government has updated its advice in relation to inland waterways and has confirmed that the use of privately-owned motorised craft is permitted. Please visit the Government website for further information:
www.gov.uk/government/news/coronavirus-guidance-on-access-to-green-spaces

Please note:

• All owners of boats on the Bridgewater Canal are to continue to follow government guidelines with regards to social distancing.

• Fishing is now permitted, if social distancing can be achieved.

• All users (pedestrians/cyclists/dog walkers/runners) should strictly observe social distancing at all times and obey local signage regarding cycling.

• Although hardcopy boat licences have not been issued yet, the Company and Enforcement Team are aware of which boats are licensed and use of these boats are permitted on canal.

• The temporary suspension of the Boat Safety Scheme has been extended to 31st July 2020, at which time the situation will be reviewed again.

Once again, thank you all for your co-operation and understanding during these very difficult times.

Best wishes,

Peter Parkinson Director – Bridgewater Canal

 

http://www.bridgewatercanal.co.uk/news/article.aspx?ID=288

[TheBiscuits]

4 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

Except he was responding to a query which was specifically about CRT canals.

 

Point accepted, especially as he has since admitted he hadn't checked his own navigation authority rules!

 

I'll bet you a pint that you can't navigate from Stretford to Lymm, leaving the boat overnight at Dunham Massey on CRT canals though ...

 

 

[Machpoint005]

2 hours ago, churchward said:

>>The greater the number of tests the more likely the estimate of depth of infection in the country is likely to be accurate.  It looks like we are getting to the point that testing is giving a reasonable view of that. <<

 

I agree with your first sentence above. I'm not sure that anyone can legitimately draw the conclusion in your second sentence - yet.

 

[churchward]

1 minute ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

I agree with your first sentence above. I'm not sure that anyone can legitimately draw the conclusion in your second sentence - yet.

 

Time and testing will indeed tell but we are testing more on a daily basis than previously but the new infections discovered is significantly down hence my comment.  As I said though to know the full scale of infection in the population you need a good number of antibody tests of a cross section of the population  to gain a truer picture.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Richard10002 said:

The evidence coming out of South Korean research is that you almost certainly are immune, and that tests that suggest reinfection, are merely finding old and dead bit of the virus's RNA, (whatever that is). Dr John Cambell and the chap from MedCram talk about it in their very recent Youtube videos:

RNA is what they found on that cruise ship several days ?weeks after the cabins were vacated but before they were deep cleaned.

 

Its like a residual indicator the virus was present but its not infectious. Not of course the way the Daily Fail presented it.

[MoominPapa]

2 hours ago, Paddle said:

I think you've got that completely upside down. The best way to protect the vulnerable is for them to hide away and for the rest of us to get it as quickly as possible. Then the vulnerable can come out of hiding.

Such a strategy requires a method to distinguish a priori those who will be harmed by the disease from those who will not. To a very high accuracy. I don't believe that's available.

 

MP.

 

[Machpoint005]

11 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

RNA is what they found on that cruise ship several days ?weeks after the cabins were vacated but before they were deep cleaned.

 

Its like a residual indicator the virus was present but its not infectious. Not of course the way the Daily Fail presented it.

 

I seem to remember that a virus doesn't have DNA anyway, only RNA, but no doubt a biochemist will be along shortly to confirm or correct my recollection. It's a long time since I did any chemistry or biology.

[churchward]

1 minute ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

I seem to remember that a virus doesn't have DNA anyway, only RNA, but no doubt a biochemist will be along shortly to confirm or correct my recollection. It's a long time since I did any chemistry or biology.

That is how I remember it and is one reason why many scientists will insist a virus is not alive as it does not have full DNA and cannot continue to exist/reproduce without a host that does. But happy to be corrected.

[Machpoint005]

3 minutes ago, churchward said:

That is how I remember it and is one reason why many scientists will insist a virus is not alive as it does not have full DNA and cannot continue to exist/reproduce without a host that does. But happy to be corrected.

 

It appears our memories are working OK:

 

linky to Wikipedia

 

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

4 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

It appears our memories are working OK:

 

linky to Wikipedia

 

 

 

 

It appears you are selective in your research!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_virus

 

(correct in this instance, but selective) 

[Machpoint005]

3 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

It appears you are selective in your research!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_virus

 

(correct in this instance, but selective) 

 Of course I am selective -- that's how you get relevant information instead of being buried in a landslide of irrelevance!

I'm still waiting for that biochemist, though.

Covid-19 is an RNA virus.

[TheBiscuits]

6 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Covid-19 is an RNA virus.

 

Yes, that's why I said you were correct in this instance.

 

24 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

I seem to remember that a virus doesn't have DNA anyway, only RNA,

 

Depends which virus you are talking about ...

[Cheshire cat]

If vaccines are about keeping everyone safe why is the flu vaccine only offered to the over sixties? I'm puzzled.

[ditchcrawler]

34 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

If vaccines are about keeping everyone safe why is the flu vaccine only offered to the over sixties? I'm puzzled.

that was explained on the TV this afternoon.

[churchward]

30 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

If vaccines are about keeping everyone safe why is the flu vaccine only offered to the over sixties? I'm puzzled.

I think it is because they are the most vulnerable group when it comes to severe symptoms and even death if they catch the flu. Although age is not the only criteria others include some health conditions, pregnancy, Frontline and social care workers for example.  The reason I think it is out given generally that this is the most cost effective way to get the immunity with the right people.  People outside the groups who catch flu will not likely to have a serious life threatening encounter with it.

 

I suppose that may be the fate of a Covid-19 vaccine in the future although I think they will try and create a wider immunity than that but on an ongoing basis annually they may go with a flu type vaccination group.  What the strategy will be is anyone's guess and some of it will come down to availability and cost

 

Other vaccines like Polio, small pox were administered as a population wide campaign as the benefits would be best served by either an elimination of the disease or a very wide immunity to it.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

53 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

If vaccines are about keeping everyone safe why is the flu vaccine only offered to the over sixties? I'm puzzled.

I used to get offered a flu jab every year when I was a school teacher.
Never took them up on the offer. 
 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Goliath
As church warden says; it’s offered to frontline workers.

[Phoenix_V]

5 hours ago, WotEver said:

From The Telegraph:

 

 

 

 

This is so weird those pedlars of lies and false news  such as the Telegraph seem to have been doing good journalism, maybe they see the seriousness of the situation for once.

[MoominPapa]

 

1 hour ago, Machpoint005 said:

 Of course I am selective -- that's how you get relevant information instead of being buried in a landslide of irrelevance!

I'm still waiting for that biochemist, though.

Covid-19 is an RNA virus.

Both DNA and RNA viruses exist. Coronaviruses are RNA viruses. 

 

A coronavirus particle consists of a molecule of RNA surrounded by a polypeptide coat. To replicate, the RNA has to get into a cell, where it gets treated as a messenger RNA and transcribed by a ribosome.  Cell membranes  are very good at keeping nucleic acid out, and the coat protein it required to smuggle the RNA in. The test for the virus is normally PCR, which is a very sensitive test for RNA/DNA with a specific base sequence,  (in this case , the sequence of the virus RNA.) It can thus indicate presence of the virus when what's actually there is RNA, not intact virus particles.

 

MP.

 

ETA It's worth Googling PCR (polymerase chain reaction), it's an amazing invention.

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by MoominPapa

[Wanderer Vagabond]

4 minutes ago, MoominPapa said:

 

Both DNA and RNA viruses exist. Coronaviruses are RNA viruses. 

 

A coronavirus particle consists of a molecule of RNA surrounded by a polypeptide coat. To replicate, the RNA has to get into a cell, where it gets treated as a messenger RNA and transcribed by a ribosome.  Cell membranes  are very good at keeping nucleic acid out, and the coat protein it required to smuggle the RNA in. The test for the virus is normally PCR, which is a very sensitive test for RNA/DNA with a specific base sequence,  (in this case , the sequence of the virus RNA.) It can thus indicate presence of the virus when what's actually there is RNA, not intact virus particles.

 

MP.

 

ETA It's worth Googling PCR, it's an amazing invention.

 

I heard that was what was causing the apparent later positive results from people who have recovered from the virus, they continue to cough up fragments of the virus which, although not viable, are detected by the PCR test. This gave the impression that people who had suffered from the virus were getting a second infection making it uncertain whether contracting the virus gave any immunity. 

[Cheshire cat]

Thanks for the explanation. I remember the "jabs" from school. Having a surname that came at the end of the alphabet was no fun at all when it meant you were stood at the back of the queue.