Covid 19

[ditchcrawler]

11 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

 

 

I find it quite unbelievable that people are either prepared to take the serious risk of catching it, or are ignorant of the ongoing risk.

Some just don't believe it exists . Surly a vaccine which gives you antibodies is there to stop you catching the virus, not to stop you carrying it and passing it to others 

[George and Dragon]

46 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Some just don't believe it exists . Surly a vaccine which gives you antibodies is there to stop you catching the virus, not to stop you carrying it and passing it to others 

I don't think that's how the disease is transmitted.

 

If a person doesn't have the disease the only way they could pass it to another would be by indirect contact: person 1 is infected and touches something that person 2 (uninfected) also touches. Person 3 would then get the virus from something  person 2 had touched. Which is why the government has consistently advised regular hand washing.

 

As I understand it the way the virus is mostly transmitted is by person 2 becoming infected which means they have produced a viral load of their own and therefore become infectious. If they don't catch the disease it's very unlikely they will transmit it to others.

[Momac]

The company I work for seems to think post Covid and  a return to working in an office with no special measures  may be as early as  January 2021

I am open to being proven wrong but I think they are delusional . 

 

It seems more than one Covid-19 vaccine injection may be needed per person, presumably with a suitable interval in between .

 

There seems no understanding yet of when vaccinations will  become available and  how long  it will  take to vaccinate the entire population. 

 

[ditchcrawler]

1 minute ago, MartynG said:

The company I work for seems to think post Covid and  a return to working in an office with no special measures  may be as early as  January 2021

I am open to being proven wrong but I think they are delusional . 

 

It seems more than one Covid-19 vaccine injection may be needed per person, presumably with a suitable interval in between .

 

There seems no understanding yet of when vaccinations will  become available and  how long  it will  take to vaccinate the entire population. 

 

To the best of my knowledge there isn't a proven one yet to be available 

[Richard10002]

23 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

To the best of my knowledge there isn't a proven one yet to be available 

No... but peterboat tells us that we will be being injected in 5 weeks or so..........

[peterboat]

2 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

No... but peterboat tells us that we will be being injected in 5 weeks or so..........

You and I wont but according to the article key workers will then the vulnerable etc 

[Guest]

I think what we will have within a timeframe of a few weeks is a vaccination that has not undergone all the testing and safety checks that all previous established vaccines have done.

 

Then it will be offered and people will need to weigh up the pros and cons of having it.

 

Me? I'll have it given the opportunity.

[Richard10002]

24 minutes ago, peterboat said:

You and I wont but according to the article key workers will then the vulnerable etc 

This will be the article that you prefer to keep a secret? 

 

I googled it as you suggested, and didn't find it. If you actually have a link why wouldn't you share it? 

[Richard10002]

8 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

I think what we will have within a timeframe of a few weeks is a vaccination that has not undergone all the testing and safety checks that all previous established vaccines have done.

 

Then it will be offered and people will need to weigh up the pros and cons of having it.

 

Me? I'll have it given the opportunity.

I doubt we'll have anything in a few weeks.

 

I've volunteered via the Zoe app to help test a vaccination if and when one is available.

 

Heard nothing to date. 

[peterboat]

1 minute ago, Richard10002 said:

This will be the article that you prefer to keep a secret? 

 

I googled it as you suggested, and didn't find it. If you actually have a link why wouldn't you share it? 

Because it came through on my Google feed and I can't find it! I can't find the key words needed as is often the case.  Yesterday a man in New Whittington broke a lot of glass in cars maybe over a 100? I was there can't find it even though I saw it with my own eyes! And neighbours have issues getting glass to repair their cars

[Mike Todd]

On 03/09/2020 at 10:49, Richard10002 said:

It would be interesting to see what you read, and where. Logic suggests that that is unlikely to be the case although, as a layman, I obviously can’t say it’s impossible.

Most people I come into close’ish contact with seem to have no concept of social distancing, whether it be a metre with a mask, 2 metres without a mask, or at all.

 

I find it quite unbelievable that people are either prepared to take the serious risk of catching it, or are ignorant of the ongoing risk.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53469839 was the one I was responding to but research.ox.ac.uk/Article/2020-07-19-the-oxford-covid-19-vaccine#:~:text=The%20Oxford%20vaccine%20contains%20the,spike%20protein%20of%20the%20coronavirus gives a more academic description from the horse's mouth as it were.

This https://www.newscientist.com/article/2249543-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine/ from the New Scientist is in between.

[ditchcrawler]

There is this from the Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-vaccine-news-covid-19-update-oxford/  

Or this from Russa with love https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/russia-coronavirus-vaccine-trial-results-a9704966.html  

[Richard10002]

20 hours ago, peterboat said:

Because it came through on my Google feed and I can't find it! I can't find the key words needed as is often the case.  Yesterday a man in New Whittington broke a lot of glass in cars maybe over a 100? I was there can't find it even though I saw it with my own eyes! And neighbours have issues getting glass to repair their cars

You suggested that I Google it..... what chance did I have of finding it, if you have no idea how it came to pass you by?

 

It seems that, since around April, (maybe earlier), there have been predictions of a vaccine being ready in 6 weeks - I know that because I've just googled it

 

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB716GB716&sxsrf=ALeKk03uWh6MeFHy6Jc6TA2C0VWXeQo9QA%3A1599247976005&ei=Z5ZSX-bsPMK3kwXjsIvoDA&q=covid+19+vaccine+in+6+weeks&oq=covid+19+vaccine+in+6+weeks&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoJCAAQsAMQBxAeOgUIABCwAzoJCAAQsAMQCBAeOgcIIxCwAhAnOggIABAIEAcQHjoICAAQDRAFEB46BAgAEA06AggAUMA9WLBXYJVeaAFwAHgAgAGdAYgB-wiSAQMwLjmYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6wAEB&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwimvJH8ntDrAhXC26QKHWPYAs0Q4dUDCA0&uact=5

 

I'd say you have seen another one of these, so called "predictions", fly past your eyes on a google feed. One day someone will make the 6 week prediction, and they will be right, so it could be a tactic designed to ensure that, one day, the poster will be able to say, "I told you so" 

 

There was a website called "housepricecrash", (or similar, in the early part of the century. For several years after it first came to my notice, house prices kept on rising. However, there was nothing more certain than that one day the web site would be right - and...... sure as eggs is eggs, 2007/8 came along, and the rest is history.

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53469839 was the one I was responding to but research.ox.ac.uk/Article/2020-07-19-the-oxford-covid-19-vaccine#:~:text=The%20Oxford%20vaccine%20contains%20the,spike%20protein%20of%20the%20coronavirus gives a more academic description from the horse's mouth as it were.

This https://www.newscientist.com/article/2249543-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine/ from the New Scientist is in between.

From the New Scientist article, (my bold and underline):

 

"The antibody response is comparable to that seen in natural infections, but the cellular response is stronger. However, it remains to be seen whether this response is sufficient to protect against infection and how long this protection lasts.

 

Even if immunity fades fast when people are infected with the coronavirus itself, that doesn’t necessarily mean vaccine-induced immunity will do the same, says team member Adrian Hill. “It’s wrong to assume that,” he says."

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2249543-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine/#ixzz6X6XfyXDs

 

Looks promising, but lots of "ifs" and "maybes" to overcome yet............

[matty40s]

[Guest]

I have a question.

 

If a virus infiltrates a country but we dont or are unable to test people to determine they have it, what relevance is the subsequent figure months later that says the infection rate is increasing when the testing capacity is expanded and routine.

 

Given the death rates and hospitalisation of cases in March, April and May there must have been humongous numbers of people (untested) who had it back then??

Edited September 4, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[alias]

3 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Given the death rates and hospitalisation of cases in March, April and May there must have been humongous numbers of people (untested) who had iit back then??

Seems likely. One estimate from the covid.joinzoe.com project that uses reports of symptoms, calibrated with testing a sample of those reporting:

[Ange]

2 hours ago, alias said:

Seems likely. One estimate from the covid.joinzoe.com project that uses reports of symptoms, calibrated with testing a sample of those reporting:

Why did you change your name? I must confess I'm often tempted but you do know a bit of simple sleuthing finds out who you were. Why?

[Machpoint005]

On 02/09/2020 at 11:58, bizzard said:

Indeed, many folk don't know what a metre is never mind two.

 

I'd be prepared to bet they don't have much idea how long a foot or a yard are either.

 

9 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

I have a question.

 

If a virus infiltrates a country but we dont or are unable to test people to determine they have it, what relevance is the subsequent figure months later that says the infection rate is increasing when the testing capacity is expanded and routine.

 

Given the death rates and hospitalisation of cases in March, April and May there must have been humongous numbers of people (untested) who had it back then??

 

The metrics are the same, but with more testing the uncertainty becomes much lower. In other words, there is a smaller margin of error.

[ditchcrawler]

14 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

I have a question.

 

If a virus infiltrates a country but we dont or are unable to test people to determine they have it, what relevance is the subsequent figure months later that says the infection rate is increasing when the testing capacity is expanded and routine.

 

Given the death rates and hospitalisation of cases in March, April and May there must have been humongous numbers of people (untested) who had it back then??

Interesting bit on radio 4 just before 9am this morning on testing, data, reliability. And why numbers look to increase but death and illness go down. It may be online 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

Interesting bit on radio 4 just before 9am this morning on testing, data, reliability. And why numbers look to increase but death and illness go down. It may be online 

There was reference on the BBC this morning saying one cause is that not only are we doing more testing but the test itself is so sensitive that people who have had it (some times weeks ago) are still testing positive because it picks up residual remnants even though the person no longer has it in an infectious form or has any symptoms.

[ditchcrawler]

3 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

There was reference on the BBC this morning saying one cause is that not only are we doing more testing but the test itself is so sensitive that people who have had it (some times weeks ago) are still testing positive because it picks up residual remnants even though the person no longer has it in an infectious form or has any symptoms.

That was 1 hr and 55 min into the 2 hour program if anyone else wants to listen. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000mcbg

[Mike Todd]

4 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

There was reference on the BBC this morning saying one cause is that not only are we doing more testing but the test itself is so sensitive that people who have had it (some times weeks ago) are still testing positive because it picks up residual remnants even though the person no longer has it in an infectious form or has any symptoms.

As Trump consistently misrepresented, doing more tests does not mean there are more people with Covud, just that we know about more if them. The second problem us always an issue with testing: make a test more sensitive and it will generate more false positives. The balance us between allowing more people freedom, to take foreign holidays for example, and allowing infectious people to roam freely. 

[matty40s]