SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

Isnt ni in a worse stat than Liverpool atm? Surprised we aren't locked down again
 
711 said:
The BBC says 'The government said it would work with local councils on the additional measures for each area '. I'm reading would work, not just has worked, which indicates to me that if the local authority asks for changes they are likely to get them. I'm quite willing to be wrong but I'm not accepting 'it's not true at all' either.
Click to expand...

That line means it is working with them (yeah right) in the higher risk areas regarding implementation and management. The fact that some authorities in Liverpool did not want a wide area lockdown but just those areas with high figures means they disagreed with the Government. Same with South Yorkshire because of Sheffield infection rates. The Government sets lockdown measures not local authorities. We just get given all the work in trying to manage them with little or no money.
 
What's to stop people from Liverpool, for example, heading over to Manchester for a night out? These lockdowns assume people exist in small bubbles which simply isn't the case.
 
TheGame said:
That line means it is working with them (yeah right) in the higher risk areas regarding implementation and management. The fact that some authorities in Liverpool did not want a wide area lockdown but just those areas with high figures means they disagreed with the Government. Same with South Yorkshire because of Sheffield infection rates. The Government sets lockdown measures not local authorities. We just get given all the work in trying to manage them with little or no money.
[
Click to expand...
I see, thanks, in that case I have overestimated the gains by 'the mayors'. Be interesting to see if they have much to say tomorrow.
 
Wibble said:
Only 4 cases which in of itself is good news. And the mix of reinfections being better and worse is also encouraging as is all 4 producing antibodies after the second infection.
Click to expand...
5 now.

“According to the case study, his second infection was more severe than the first, with symptoms including fever, cough and dizziness.

The researchers sequenced the RNA from both virus samples and found they were two different strains, making it a true reinfection.

Scientists have not concluded why someone might contract the virus twice or if some people are more predisposed to reinfection. The Nevada case marks the fifth case globally of reinfection, and scientists say so far that such instances are rare.”


https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...ftEBo0m7xmRDnptqm2V-rq8ygLNdWGse2r5xK_MVZfH-M
 
Carolina Red said:
5 now.

“According to the case study, his second infection was more severe than the first, with symptoms including fever, cough and dizziness.

The researchers sequenced the RNA from both virus samples and found they were two different strains, making it a true reinfection.

Scientists have not concluded why someone might contract the virus twice or if some people are more predisposed to reinfection. The Nevada case marks the fifth case globally of reinfection, and scientists say so far that such instances are rare.”


https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...ftEBo0m7xmRDnptqm2V-rq8ygLNdWGse2r5xK_MVZfH-M
Click to expand...

Given that the majority of initial infections are mild or asymptomatic and thus produce antibodies less often than more severe infectioms we would probably expect reinfections to be worse on average.
 
Last edited:
Wibble said:
Given that the majority of initial infections are mild or asymptomatic and thus produce antibodies less often than more severe infectioms we would probably expect reinfections to be worse on average.
Click to expand...
I reckon. I just thought the article was interesting, especially since it is a “true reinfection” with multiple strains being caught.
 
Carolina Red said:
I reckon. I just thought the article was interesting, especially since it is a “true reinfection” with multiple strains being caught.
Click to expand...

I think all 5 cases are almost certainly true reinfections. I'm really glad there aren't more even if we won't have caught all of them. You would have to expect a much higher reinfection rate would be apparent if it was very widespread.
 
Carolina Red said:
Hmmm. Fair enough.

edit: this is what I’d read. Apparently I mixed it up in my head that all had restarted recently but it’s the non-US trials. The US trials are/were under further investigation by the FDA
https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/azd1222-covid-vaccine-trials-astrazeneca/
Click to expand...

With such conditions there is no point to a longer shut down just as there wasn't when someone got MS. If however you got another case or two then there would be a real concern that the vaccine caused the condition.
 
Wibble said:
With such conditions there is no point to a longer shut down just as there wasn't when someone got MS. If however you got another case or two then there would be a real concern that the vaccine caused the condition.
Click to expand...
I had a similar reaction to travel vacs over 20 years ago. I ended up with paralysis and spinal cord damage and spent a week in a neuro hospital. For some people with autoimmune disorders, vaccines can trigger MS or if you're lucky, just a single episode.
 
Wibble said:
Given that the majority of initial infections are mild or asymptomatic and thus produce antibodies less often than more severe infectioms we would probably expect reinfections to be worse on average.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope that’s not the case. Because if reinfections are worse on average we’re in a shit-load of trouble.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I certainly hope that’s not the case. Because if reinfections are worse on average we’re in a shit-load of trouble.
Click to expand...

I don't think they are and what little data we have seems to confirm that (for what it is worth) but you might expect it as the majority of initial infections are mild or even aysmptomatic so in the immortal words of Jazz and The Plastic People "The only way is up".
 
Wibble said:
I don't think a total of 5 worldwide means that at all. Rather it point to the opposite.
Click to expand...

Eh? Come on, Wibs. Why are you such a zealot about this? All available evidence points towards viral eradication being a pipe dream. Have you seen the end-points in the vaccine studies? Even the manufacturers are less bullish than you about sterilising immunity.
 
Andy_Cole said:
Well how would you do it?

There’s probably a way to suit your agenda (for example total number of cases vs deaths which boosts it to like 2/3%) but clearly the number getting tested isn’t everyone who has the virus. There’s no way to get an exact figure. I suppose if someone has the data of September UK cases vs deaths that’s something I’d listen to.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with an agenda.

You just may as well have used two numbers you made up is all.

You did some math on two completely unlinked numbers. The 50 deaths had nothing to do with the positive tests. They’re different data points.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
If reinfection occurs, doesn't that mean any vaccine would ultimately be ineffective aswell?
Click to expand...

With vaccines, you can give immunity to a wider swath of people in shorter time with less pain than waiting for the virus to infect a majority at the same time.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
If reinfection occurs, doesn't that mean any vaccine would ultimately be ineffective aswell?
Click to expand...
In itself it doesn't mean much, but it's part of a pattern that means that people will probably need an annual top-up of any vaccine (unless the virus mutates to a milder or less infectious form).

Ineffective means different things in different situations though. With the vaccines under test, most researchers suggest that the vaccines won't necessarily stop all people taking it from catching the virus. The hope is that the vaccines will also make the disease milder in people that do catch it.

The general view is that vaccines will let us live with rather than eradicate the virus. If the vaccines also stop you being infectious even if you do catch it, it'll have a big effect on transmission rates and case numbers as well as on the vaccinated individual's health though.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Eh? Come on, Wibs. Why are you such a zealot about this? All available evidence points towards viral eradication being a pipe dream. Have you seen the end-points in the vaccine studies? Even the manufacturers are less bullish than you about sterilising immunity.
Click to expand...

I meant that reinfection being at such low levels (if it continues to be true) isn't a significant barrier to reaching a very high level of worldwide immunity or even HIT, not that it says anything about eradication directly. I actually think vaccine resistance silliness might be the biggest barrier, even assuming we can produce,manufacture and distribute a vaccine quickly enough.

Sterilising antibodies would be great but many hugely successful vaccines deal with post cellular infection processes. I suspect that if we get a highly effective vaccine soon (or even eventually if the first cab off the rank isn't) we might need monoclonal antibodies and anti-virals to control it.

I can see a world where places like NZ and Australia have 95% vaccination rates (stated government aim with the vaccine being free) and antibody/anti-viral treatments widely available, who effectively eradicate, with many other countries lagging behind. Which then makes opening up again an even bigger challenge.

Of course that could look very different without a vaccine.
 
Stack said:
If the vaccine gives a short term (1 year) immunity at the least we would see a slow down in infection rates and once infection rates get low enough the whole track and trace routine becomes manageable. That said I suspect that even with a vaccine the world is going to have to get used to a new style of socialisation. Asia has already been using masks for years, one part of that was it became impolite in society to be in public without a mask on if you had even a slight sniffle. The rest of us will need to change to that type of thinking. Its not just masks though, we will also need to be able to take time off work if we feel ill, either by more acceptance from employers of sick leave or also less stoic behaviour when even slightly ill. There are more of these things but the sooner the whole world changes habits the faster this thing becomes controlled. Sadly habits are very difficult to both break and form.
Click to expand...
I think this is right. I see a lot of people thinking something like 'ok, maybe it'll take a few years for us to get on top of this virus, but then it's back to normal'. I doubt it. Not least because there will be similar new viruses with pandemic potential coming down the track and we're going to need to adapt our behaviour to live with them.
 
Wibble said:
I meant that reinfection being at such low levels (if it continues to be true) isn't a significant barrier to reaching a very high level of worldwide immunity or even HIT, not that it says anything about eradication directly. I actually think vaccine resistance silliness might be the biggest barrier, even assuming we can produce,manufacture and distribute a vaccine quickly enough.

Sterilising antibodies would be great but many hugely successful vaccines deal with post cellular infection processes. I suspect that if we get a highly effective vaccine soon (or even eventually if the first cab off the rank isn't) we might need monoclonal antibodies and anti-virals to control it.

I can see a world where places like NZ and Australia have 95% vaccination rates (stated government aim with the vaccine being free) and antibody/anti-viral treatments widely available, who effectively eradicate, with many other countries lagging behind. Which then makes opening up again an even bigger challenge.

Of course that could look very different without a vaccine.
Click to expand...

I think the most likely outcome is a mish mash of different vaccines, with varying degrees of efficacy and varying degrees of uptake (and varying dates of roll out) making this thing gradually easier to live with over the next several years, as it becomes endemic. With the increasing evidence that infection doesn’t give lasting immunity (something we already knew was the case with common cold coronaviruses) my hopes of a durable and effective sterilising vaccine are fading. I had hoped that prior infection would at least mean reinfection would be a very mild illness (as per common cold cov) so it’s a worry if this isn’t the case. Likewise reinfections happening so soon. I was hoping they wouldn’t start turning up until next year.

In the medium term, I would be putting my eggs in the effective treatment basket as the most likely way we can get back to a life that is close to normal. This whole rapid and severe reinfection thing is a crushing disappointment.
 
Last edited:
esmufc07 said:
The problem is vaccine uptake if and when one is developed. Anti-vaxers seem to have exponentially grown over the last few months.
Click to expand...
Even with ani vaxxers being a problem a vaccine will help make it harder for the virus to spread, it will slow down transmission. I dont see anti vaxxers in this being a major concern, more of a cause of argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.