I assume Boris is set to accept a certain number of deaths, in order to restart the economy. Of course, it won't be phrased like that, rather we will have a world beating approach, and deaths will be in small print. As to how many deaths, don't know. I suppose they will accept 30-40 000 a year?
Economic malaise because the economy won't get going properly again until people feel safe.
This is something that seems to be lost in the current "2m or not 2m, that is the question". Reducing the minimum distance will allow more people into a restaurant or pub ... but it's only relevant if enough people actually want to go out to the pub. Which won't happen until people feel safe. If, as seems likely, the government announcements of limited lifting of lockdown which (coupled by prominent government advisers ignoring clear instructions and getting away with it) have lead to a large minority of people ignoring any sort of social distancing restraint leads to a second wave then the majority simply won't feel safe. I can see the government reducing the 2m distance and less people going to the pub than would have been the case if it had been left at 2m because people would feel much safer with a 2m spacing.
I saw/heard a report discussing how flawed the Lancet research that is being used as justification for reducing the distance is - lots of problems with the maths and assumptions - article from Guardian.
The Lancet editor has published a few other dubious papers in his time and a challenging new book - entitled The UK Response to Coronavirus is the Greatest Science Policy Failure for a Generation, link to a review article
Vaccines. They test safety, effectiveness. It is plural. There's some 100 teams working away. Almost all of them work with the WHO and share info. They meet weekly.
The univ lab here discussed that none of the individual vaccine candidates is likely to be more than 30% effective. Any released vaccine will be a combination of various vaccines. That one group may have started human trials means the world effort is going forward. The rules vary country to country re when human trials commence. Some thoroughly test with multiple animal candidates before humans. Some do less before human trials.
Best worst case scenario. Worst: no vaccine or 40% effective like the flu, at best, Xmas 2021, but it's more infectious and effectively more lethal. So. Let the low risk go free. Quarantine the rest. In fifty years we're all dead anyway. Like varicella - chickenpox, expose kids to it, as before '95. As they age, they won't be at risk. If immunity is conferred. As it isn't with flu...
... Best.
You can't reliably quarantine everyone who is vulnerable unless you're keeping the spread of the virus under control in the wider community because many of those people have family and/or need caring for, and the carers have families / need to go shopping / travel by bus / whatever. It's simply not a viable strategy unless you like the idea of half a million dead and doctors killing themselves because they can't handle the utter disaster you've meted out.
I love it of course.
So what's your economic strategy for the next 18 months until the palliative vaccine and thereafter?
Lockdown until case numbers are low enough for track and trace to work and the system is working properly. That's what NZ, South Korea, Australia are doing. Scotland might manage it but we'd need to fortify the border because England is well on the way to a second wave.
Source on English second wave? Track & trace will never work in the UK. To a palliative degree at best. Like my claim on flu shots being 40% effective, which no one questioned, whereas when I made the more general claim - without the 40% - previously, a counter claim that flu shots are predominantly effective was made. The reality may well be better than 40%, as that takes in to account all flu like infections; the shots may be better against flu per se. Palliation - as a metaphor, analogy - or a degree of creeping herd immunity is the best that can be hoped for in the UK with track & trace. Which cannot stop schools and shops and workplaces opening. The economy has already gone back over 15 years.
I will challenge your claim of the influenza vaccine being only 40% effective. According to the Center for Disease Control (US) the effectiveness can be up to 60%. The one strain has the lowest effectiveness is the H3N2 variety. That is because it mutates so fast. Also, part of the problem is trying to guess the three strains that will be active in the next year. Sometimes the scientists believe they have the right mix, but then another strain pops up and it is impossible to recalibrate the vaccine.
I can only relay my personal experience. About 20 years ago I almost died from the complications of flu. Ever since then I have religiously gotten a flu shot. In the 19 years, I have not gotten the flu in spite of the fact many of the people I have worked with came down with it. According to the CDC estimates of effectiveness, I should have gotten the flu in eight of those 19 years, so at least I am beating the odds. (Knock on wood).
I am thinking that when a COVID 19 vaccine is available, it will be a combination of more than one type of vaccine. The one thing that seems to be constant even when the Coronavirus mutates ins the spike protein which the virus uses to attach itself to a healthy cell. Counter that that protein and I believe you will have a pretty effective vaccine.
As I have said before, when a vaccine does come available, I will be one of the first in my community to get it. Even if it is only 40% effective, it will help break the spread of the virus.
I assume Boris is set to accept a certain number of deaths, in order to restart the economy. Of course, it won't be phrased like that, rather we will have a world beating approach, and deaths will be in small print. As to how many deaths, don't know. I suppose they will accept 30-40 000 a year?
On our behalf, yes. A hundred a day OOM on average for the next 18 months at least.
Economic malaise because the economy won't get going properly again until people feel safe.
This is something that seems to be lost in the current "2m or not 2m, that is the question". Reducing the minimum distance will allow more people into a restaurant or pub ... but it's only relevant if enough people actually want to go out to the pub. Which won't happen until people feel safe. If, as seems likely, the government announcements of limited lifting of lockdown which (coupled by prominent government advisers ignoring clear instructions and getting away with it) have lead to a large minority of people ignoring any sort of social distancing restraint leads to a second wave then the majority simply won't feel safe. I can see the government reducing the 2m distance and less people going to the pub than would have been the case if it had been left at 2m because people would feel much safer with a 2m spacing.
Exactly.
Detailed analysis by Oxford Economist Simon Wren-Lewis here.
In other words there is no trade-off between public health and the economy: better public health (less COVID-19 infections) is the sure way to a substantial recovery.
Detailed analysis by Oxford Economist Simon Wren-Lewis here.
In other words there is no trade-off between public health and the economy: better public health (less COVID-19 infections) is the sure way to a substantial recovery.
AFZ
There are some people here who think that the Government made a mistake in closing the borders and having the lockdown. I suspected that having a large number of deaths would also have wrecked the economy, but I don't have the skills to prove it - only a hunch, so thanks for quoting this.
Beijing reporting "extremely severe" outbreak with new clampdowns in some areas, travel restrictions, quarantine for some residents. Skeptics about a second wave, look away now.
Beijing reporting "extremely severe" outbreak with new clampdowns in some areas, travel restrictions, quarantine for some residents. Skeptics about a second wave, look away now.
It started in the worst possible place - a market. I doubt there were many ‘distancing’ measures there at all. 🤔
Boris hailing the steroid, which has been found to reduce deaths in severely ill people. I wonder if he will play down the u-turn on free school meals. Twitter is trending with "Marcus Rashford, the new prime minister".
Beijing reporting "extremely severe" outbreak with new clampdowns in some areas, travel restrictions, quarantine for some residents. Skeptics about a second wave, look away now.
There are also suggestions of a second wave in Iran.
New Zealand also has the first cases in ages, thanks to Brits visiting.
Essentially, Dexamethasone is a steroid that has been in use for decades and is incredibly cheap with a well understood side effect profile.
In this study the mortality of ventilated patients dropped from 40% to 28%.
As I have said, the pathophysiology of Covid-19 is to a large extent due to the body's inflammatory response rather than the virus itself. Steroids are incredibly potent anti inflammatory drugs with very few side effects in short term use. So this result makes biological sense as well.
Most importantly, every intensive care unit in the world uses this drug frequently and thus it's incredibly easy to take this finding into routine clinical use.
Essentially, Dexamethasone is a steroid that has been in use for decades and is incredibly cheap with a well understood side effect profile.
In this study the mortality of ventilated patients dropped from 40% to 28%.
As I have said, the pathophysiology of Covid-19 is to a large extent due to the body's inflammatory response rather than the virus itself. Steroids are incredibly potent anti inflammatory drugs with very few side effects in short term use. So this result makes biological sense as well.
Most importantly, every intensive care unit in the world uses this drug frequently and thus it's incredibly easy to take this finding into routine clinical use.
This is definitely good news.
AFZ
Good possible news. As near as I can tell the information all comes from press releases, not a refereed paper. Caveat lector.
If reports are accurate it will reduce the severity of symptoms, with a small reduction in death rates of the most severe cases. Possibly it might reduce the number of patients needing oxygen and ventilators, or reduce the time they need them. But, no ... it's not something that makes a significant difference for most of us, it won't change the need for social distancing etc.
Essentially, Dexamethasone is a steroid that has been in use for decades and is incredibly cheap with a well understood side effect profile.
In this study the mortality of ventilated patients dropped from 40% to 28%.
As I have said, the pathophysiology of Covid-19 is to a large extent due to the body's inflammatory response rather than the virus itself. Steroids are incredibly potent anti inflammatory drugs with very few side effects in short term use. So this result makes biological sense as well.
Most importantly, every intensive care unit in the world uses this drug frequently and thus it's incredibly easy to take this finding into routine clinical use.
This is definitely good news.
AFZ
Good possible news. As near as I can tell the information all comes from press releases, not a refereed paper. Caveat lector.
You're right of course in the strictest sense. However, whilst I want to read the data myself, I would be ABSOLUTELY STUNNED if this wasn't really clear cut. This is the government funded big study on Covid-19 with 6000 patients in this part of it. Looking at the research group, they would have done things properly and classic RCT failures like not randomising properly or loss to follow up of large numbers won't apply. The hardest thing with a RCT is recruiting enough participants. (From the research I've been doing, there will hopefully follow an international trial with maybe a couple of hundred patients if we can manage that). The paradox of Covid-19 is that the science has been rapid and very good. Finding thousands of participants will not have been that hard.
I will read the paper in full but I am confident that this group will not have made so confident a release of findings if they didn't have it cold.
My impression was that this was a classic case of trialling a drug that shows such an obvious benefit, that beyond a certain point not giving it to the control group becomes in itself unethical.
New Zealand also has the first cases in ages, thanks to Brits visiting.
That will happen, and is what quarantine is for. Where the mistake was made with these women was allowing them to leave quarantine and drive to Wellington. This has resulted in the clarification that no one leaves quarantine before their 2 weeks are up for any reason. I think heads may roll over this decision.
I was just relieved that when the cases were reported it was obvious they weren't from community transfer, which would have been very worrying.
I don't think that the group leading it would risk their reputation on something that they would have to back-track on. It's been reported in the news as 'we think that this is important enough that we will tell you now, before we have a chance to write up the full data, especially as it is such an easy thing to implement.'
As the New Zealand case shows though, the rest of us still need to be careful walking around and keep our distance, even if other people are not. I've just been shopping for some more storage boxes to deal with the Christmas decoration bag pile in our bedroom, which is in imminent danger of collapse, and the staff in particular were standing around chatting at close quarters.
It appears that either it’s being reported badly or there is some sleight of hand going on, as it concentrates on the inform side of the app rather than the detect side.
The whole idea of the app was sleight of hand anyway. What's needed to allow further easing of restrictions is boots on the ground - local public health care professionals, working with local services (social work departments, local GPs etc) - to contact people who test positive to trace and test those they've come into contact with. Serco running a call centre isn't going to work any better than the app.
But, the government is determined to "take back control" and do things in a unique manner rather than learn from other nations. So, what's been shown to work in other places isn't going to be adopted because it wasn't "Made in Britain".
That subtopic has been the subject of much discussion on this thread and given the new guidelines I thought it deserved a thread of its own. Please use it in the future.
New research in a non-peer reviewed paper on antibodies suggests humans may never develop immunity against COVID-19. The conclusion from both Chinese and American scientists was based around a study on Wuhan hospital workers who were previously exposed to infected patients early on during the outbreak and had developed antibodies, according to the South China Morning Post. Of the more than 23,000 samples tested, at least a quarter could have been infected with the virus at some point, according to the scientists. However, only 4% had developed antibodies as of April.“People are unlikely to produce long-lasting protective antibodies against this virus,” the researchers said in a non-peer-reviewed paper published on Tuesday.
Note: the article I link to above itself contains a couple of further links for anyone interested in reading further.
That has long been a concern. There was a British Medical Research Centre set up shortly after the war to study respiratory diseases. Because it's not really ethical to infect people with really nasty stuff, they concentrated on the common cold. The first human coronaviruses were identified there, as causes of some colds. That research showed that exposure to those viruses did not result in long term immunity. So, it's not impossible that the same would be true for more serious versions of coronavirus, such as that responsible for the current pandemic.
I know it's a very different thing, but every time I see a report about fast-tracking development of covid vaccines, I think about the fact that there still is no vaccine for HIV.
In this Q&A article, Dr. Fauci notes the differences between HIV and COVID-19 that make people much more confident about getting a vaccine quickly for the latter:
Well, I think the challenge for getting a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 [severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2] is more of a time element. We feel fairly confident, given the fact that the body makes a pretty good immune response against natural infection, that you can get a vaccine to induce a similar response that could protect—you never guarantee that; there’s never a guarantee with vaccinology. But we feel fairly confident that we’ll get a vaccine. We’d like to get one.
And the projections are that it’s at least aspirationally possible by the end of the year and the beginning of 2021. Whereas with HIV, we’ve been working on a vaccine for 30-plus years. It is very difficult to get a vaccine because it’s very difficult to induce the body to do something that even natural infection doesn’t successfully allow it to do, [which] is to develop an adequate immune response to clear the virus. So the challenges are very, very different. I’m more confident that we’ll get a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 than I am that we’ll get one against HIV, although I have cautious optimism that we’ll get it for both. But I think it’s going to be much easier to get it against the coronavirus.
I know it's a very different thing, but every time I see a report about fast-tracking development of covid vaccines, I think about the fact that there still is no vaccine for HIV.
And I think of drugs and vaccines that turned out to have horrible side effects. (E.g, thalidomide; polio acquired from the oral vaccine.)
There's no real data on SARS-CoV2 yet for obvious reasons but data from other similar viruses suggests immunity to 2 years post exposure to the disease. (It may well be more but that's as far as the data goes).
Any putative vaccine may provoke a smaller immune response than the virus itself and thus potentially less immune memory. Conversely, the vaccine I know most about has the potential to be more immunogenic than the virus.
There are no certainties in science - you've got to do the science to get the answers but I expect to have a viable vaccine next year.
If the vaccine provides life-long immunity, that's perfect but actually even short term is enough if used right. This virus dies out when it doesn't have a new host to jump to. Currently that's being achieved by stopping people interacting. The point of a vaccine is to surround an infected person with only non-susceptible people. If the virus stops circulating then it doesn't matter so much if the individual immunity wanes.
New research in a non-peer reviewed paper on antibodies suggests humans may never develop immunity against COVID-19. The conclusion from both Chinese and American scientists was based around a study on Wuhan hospital workers who were previously exposed to infected patients early on during the outbreak and had developed antibodies, according to the South China Morning Post. Of the more than 23,000 samples tested, at least a quarter could have been infected with the virus at some point, according to the scientists. However, only 4% had developed antibodies as of April.“People are unlikely to produce long-lasting protective antibodies against this virus,” the researchers said in a non-peer-reviewed paper published on Tuesday.
Note: the article I link to above itself contains a couple of further links for anyone interested in reading further.
On the other hand, I find this a lot less worrisome:
You May Have Antibodies After Coronavirus Infection. But Not for Long.
Antibodies to the virus faded quickly in asymptomatic people, scientists reported. That does not mean immunity disappears.
Apparently, immunity is a complicated matter - who knew?
Novak Djokovic the first ranked tennis player in the world tested positive for Covid-19. He's an anti-vaccination idiot who hosted a tennis tournament which is the cause of his and others' misery.
It doesn't matter if it's a politician, business leader, sports person, actor, religious leader. We mustn't listen to them about public health matters.
Essentially, Dexamethasone is a steroid that has been in use for decades and is incredibly cheap with a well understood side effect profile.
In this study the mortality of ventilated patients dropped from 40% to 28%.
As I have said, the pathophysiology of Covid-19 is to a large extent due to the body's inflammatory response rather than the virus itself. Steroids are incredibly potent anti inflammatory drugs with very few side effects in short term use. So this result makes biological sense as well.
Most importantly, every intensive care unit in the world uses this drug frequently and thus it's incredibly easy to take this finding into routine clinical use.
This is definitely good news.
AFZ
Good possible news. As near as I can tell the information all comes from press releases, not a refereed paper. Caveat lector.
You're right of course in the strictest sense. However, whilst I want to read the data myself, I would be ABSOLUTELY STUNNED if this wasn't really clear cut. This is the government funded big study on Covid-19 with 6000 patients in this part of it. Looking at the research group, they would have done things properly and classic RCT failures like not randomising properly or loss to follow up of large numbers won't apply. The hardest thing with a RCT is recruiting enough participants. (From the research I've been doing, there will hopefully follow an international trial with maybe a couple of hundred patients if we can manage that). The paradox of Covid-19 is that the science has been rapid and very good. Finding thousands of participants will not have been that hard.
I will read the paper in full but I am confident that this group will not have made so confident a release of findings if they didn't have it cold.
AFZ
The full study has been released and it seems to come with some serious caveats.
Now the full study is posted online. It shows the drug may be risky for patients with milder illness & the timing of the treatment is critical.
24 June 2020
So potentially useful for serious cases but not a magic bullet. There's a link to a New York Times article with more details at that tweet, for those who want to use one of their monthly Times clicks to find out more.
Just saw a film of Bournemouth station, people pouring off trains packed tightly, then onto beach, packed together. I don't get this, is is post-lockdown hysteria? Let's hope the virus is on holiday. On Twitter under #Covididiots.
Essentially, Dexamethasone is a steroid that has been in use for decades and is incredibly cheap with a well understood side effect profile.
In this study the mortality of ventilated patients dropped from 40% to 28%.
As I have said, the pathophysiology of Covid-19 is to a large extent due to the body's inflammatory response rather than the virus itself. Steroids are incredibly potent anti inflammatory drugs with very few side effects in short term use. So this result makes biological sense as well.
Most importantly, every intensive care unit in the world uses this drug frequently and thus it's incredibly easy to take this finding into routine clinical use.
This is definitely good news.
AFZ
Good possible news. As near as I can tell the information all comes from press releases, not a refereed paper. Caveat lector.
You're right of course in the strictest sense. However, whilst I want to read the data myself, I would be ABSOLUTELY STUNNED if this wasn't really clear cut. This is the government funded big study on Covid-19 with 6000 patients in this part of it. Looking at the research group, they would have done things properly and classic RCT failures like not randomising properly or loss to follow up of large numbers won't apply. The hardest thing with a RCT is recruiting enough participants. (From the research I've been doing, there will hopefully follow an international trial with maybe a couple of hundred patients if we can manage that). The paradox of Covid-19 is that the science has been rapid and very good. Finding thousands of participants will not have been that hard.
I will read the paper in full but I am confident that this group will not have made so confident a release of findings if they didn't have it cold.
AFZ
The full study has been released and it seems to come with some serious caveats.
Now the full study is posted online. It shows the drug may be risky for patients with milder illness & the timing of the treatment is critical.
24 June 2020
So potentially useful for serious cases but not a magic bullet. There's a link to a New York Times article with more details at that tweet, for those who want to use one of their monthly Times clicks to find out more.
The UK clinical guidelines from the point it was announced have been very explicit that it is purely for people who require help with breathing, based on the outcomes of the research, so that isn't a huge surprise, and many of these things are time sensitive. (Disclaimer, the trust I work for were involved in the clinical trials.)
The Guardian website has an article about 10 countries which are experiencing the beginnings of a second wave (or so it would appear).
I can't access the full article, or link to it, for arcane technical reasons (or possibly necromancy on the part of Boris and his cabal). Perhaps my eyesight is failing...
Is England one of those countries? After seeing what's going on in Dorset, I rather fear we are...
The BBC article says 11 European countries have a resurgence; Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, North Macedonia, the Republic of Moldova, Sweden and Ukraine.
Just saw a film of Bournemouth station, people pouring off trains packed tightly, then onto beach, packed together. I don't get this, is is post-lockdown hysteria? Let's hope the virus is on holiday. On Twitter under #Covididiots.
Similar things were said about crowds of people on the beach at Ruislip Lido several weeks ago. I don't think that led to a spike in west London, though the beach remains closed.
Comments
The Lancet editor has published a few other dubious papers in his time and a challenging new book - entitled The UK Response to Coronavirus is the Greatest Science Policy Failure for a Generation, link to a review article
The univ lab here discussed that none of the individual vaccine candidates is likely to be more than 30% effective. Any released vaccine will be a combination of various vaccines. That one group may have started human trials means the world effort is going forward. The rules vary country to country re when human trials commence. Some thoroughly test with multiple animal candidates before humans. Some do less before human trials.
I will challenge your claim of the influenza vaccine being only 40% effective. According to the Center for Disease Control (US) the effectiveness can be up to 60%. The one strain has the lowest effectiveness is the H3N2 variety. That is because it mutates so fast. Also, part of the problem is trying to guess the three strains that will be active in the next year. Sometimes the scientists believe they have the right mix, but then another strain pops up and it is impossible to recalibrate the vaccine.
I can only relay my personal experience. About 20 years ago I almost died from the complications of flu. Ever since then I have religiously gotten a flu shot. In the 19 years, I have not gotten the flu in spite of the fact many of the people I have worked with came down with it. According to the CDC estimates of effectiveness, I should have gotten the flu in eight of those 19 years, so at least I am beating the odds. (Knock on wood).
I am thinking that when a COVID 19 vaccine is available, it will be a combination of more than one type of vaccine. The one thing that seems to be constant even when the Coronavirus mutates ins the spike protein which the virus uses to attach itself to a healthy cell. Counter that that protein and I believe you will have a pretty effective vaccine.
As I have said before, when a vaccine does come available, I will be one of the first in my community to get it. Even if it is only 40% effective, it will help break the spread of the virus.
On our behalf, yes. A hundred a day OOM on average for the next 18 months at least.
Exactly.
Detailed analysis by Oxford Economist Simon Wren-Lewis here.
AFZ
There are some people here who think that the Government made a mistake in closing the borders and having the lockdown. I suspected that having a large number of deaths would also have wrecked the economy, but I don't have the skills to prove it - only a hunch, so thanks for quoting this.
It started in the worst possible place - a market. I doubt there were many ‘distancing’ measures there at all. 🤔
New Zealand also has the first cases in ages, thanks to Brits visiting.
https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/first-drug-to-reduce-mortality-in-hospitalised-patients-with-respiratory-complications-of-covid-19-found/25061
Essentially, Dexamethasone is a steroid that has been in use for decades and is incredibly cheap with a well understood side effect profile.
In this study the mortality of ventilated patients dropped from 40% to 28%.
As I have said, the pathophysiology of Covid-19 is to a large extent due to the body's inflammatory response rather than the virus itself. Steroids are incredibly potent anti inflammatory drugs with very few side effects in short term use. So this result makes biological sense as well.
Most importantly, every intensive care unit in the world uses this drug frequently and thus it's incredibly easy to take this finding into routine clinical use.
This is definitely good news.
AFZ
Quite possibly.
Good possible news. As near as I can tell the information all comes from press releases, not a refereed paper. Caveat lector.
You're right of course in the strictest sense. However, whilst I want to read the data myself, I would be ABSOLUTELY STUNNED if this wasn't really clear cut. This is the government funded big study on Covid-19 with 6000 patients in this part of it. Looking at the research group, they would have done things properly and classic RCT failures like not randomising properly or loss to follow up of large numbers won't apply. The hardest thing with a RCT is recruiting enough participants. (From the research I've been doing, there will hopefully follow an international trial with maybe a couple of hundred patients if we can manage that). The paradox of Covid-19 is that the science has been rapid and very good. Finding thousands of participants will not have been that hard.
I will read the paper in full but I am confident that this group will not have made so confident a release of findings if they didn't have it cold.
AFZ
That will happen, and is what quarantine is for. Where the mistake was made with these women was allowing them to leave quarantine and drive to Wellington. This has resulted in the clarification that no one leaves quarantine before their 2 weeks are up for any reason. I think heads may roll over this decision.
I was just relieved that when the cases were reported it was obvious they weren't from community transfer, which would have been very worrying.
As the New Zealand case shows though, the rest of us still need to be careful walking around and keep our distance, even if other people are not. I've just been shopping for some more storage boxes to deal with the Christmas decoration bag pile in our bedroom, which is in imminent danger of collapse, and the staff in particular were standing around chatting at close quarters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53083340
It appears that either it’s being reported badly or there is some sleight of hand going on, as it concentrates on the inform side of the app rather than the detect side.
But, the government is determined to "take back control" and do things in a unique manner rather than learn from other nations. So, what's been shown to work in other places isn't going to be adopted because it wasn't "Made in Britain".
I suggest app discussions go to the testing, tracking and tracing thread.
RL priorities got in the way but I have set up this new thread on global and national pandemic trends.
That subtopic has been the subject of much discussion on this thread and given the new guidelines I thought it deserved a thread of its own. Please use it in the future.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Note: the article I link to above itself contains a couple of further links for anyone interested in reading further.
And I think of drugs and vaccines that turned out to have horrible side effects. (E.g, thalidomide; polio acquired from the oral vaccine.)
About 20 pages back, I wrote this: http://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/comment/281417#Comment_281417
There's no real data on SARS-CoV2 yet for obvious reasons but data from other similar viruses suggests immunity to 2 years post exposure to the disease. (It may well be more but that's as far as the data goes).
Any putative vaccine may provoke a smaller immune response than the virus itself and thus potentially less immune memory. Conversely, the vaccine I know most about has the potential to be more immunogenic than the virus.
There are no certainties in science - you've got to do the science to get the answers but I expect to have a viable vaccine next year.
If the vaccine provides life-long immunity, that's perfect but actually even short term is enough if used right. This virus dies out when it doesn't have a new host to jump to. Currently that's being achieved by stopping people interacting. The point of a vaccine is to surround an infected person with only non-susceptible people. If the virus stops circulating then it doesn't matter so much if the individual immunity wanes.
AFZ
On the other hand, I find this a lot less worrisome:
Apparently, immunity is a complicated matter - who knew?
My Stay-at-Home Lab Shows How Face Coverings Can Slow the Spread of Disease
A very bad man. https://apnews.com/a05bd74bc4c43bc1373890e594083762
It doesn't matter if it's a politician, business leader, sports person, actor, religious leader. We mustn't listen to them about public health matters.
The full study has been released and it seems to come with some serious caveats.
So potentially useful for serious cases but not a magic bullet. There's a link to a New York Times article with more details at that tweet, for those who want to use one of their monthly Times clicks to find out more.
There will be a second spike 😤
I can't access the full article, or link to it, for arcane technical reasons (or possibly necromancy on the part of Boris and his cabal). Perhaps my eyesight is failing...
Is England one of those countries? After seeing what's going on in Dorset, I rather fear we are...
We're not on the list. Most of the countries mentioned (apart from Sweden) are full of Horrid Foreign People Not Like Us, so I guess we're safe...
Similar things were said about crowds of people on the beach at Ruislip Lido several weeks ago. I don't think that led to a spike in west London, though the beach remains closed.