When will this shit end?

[zahidf]

Interested in your thoughts on this toilet duck. Seems to indicate a higher than expected community immunity based on common cold?

 

 

 

 

[Ayrshire Chris]

34 minutes ago, semmtexx said:

Means that Labour have other work to do to win again. 

Yes they do, and us in Scotland especially need to win back the many voters who have deserted us in traditional labour areas and moved to the nationalists. A few decades ago the snp moved to the left, designed to increase their votes in the central belt. Labour didn’t grasp the significance of this until it was too late.  In fact the snp used to be known as the tartan Tories!  Labour needs Scottish MPs, I would much rather have an opposition or government made up of labour MPs than a coalition of labour and nationalists who will set conditions for their support,   

[Guest]

http://chng.it/kSHjzWvxQy
 

Petition of a public vote of no confidence in Boris.

[Neil]

2 hours ago, chuckles07 said:

 

Hi Neil. Do you have a copy of these, both links seem to have been taken down. I wonder if someone at no. 10 is not happy and has intervened. Full capacity may be a lot lower than what has been assumed......

I don't have a copy, sorry.

I've just checked my mail for the first time in a few hours, and have found a request from FR to take it down (so I have). It says "we have a few amends to make our side", tho sounds like an updated version will be published somewhen soon-ish.

[chuckles07]

4 minutes ago, Neil said:

I don't have a copy, sorry.

I've just checked my mail for the first time in a few hours, and have found a request from FR to take it down (so I have). It says "we have a few amends to make our side", tho sounds like an updated version will be published somewhen soon-ish.

Thanks Neil. That is interesting. I wonder if Melvin has been bollocked for being so forthright in using testing in that way. Would be keen to see the new announcement, should there be one, compared to the original one.........

[Toilet Duck]

36 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Interested in your thoughts on this toilet duck. Seems to indicate a higher than expected community immunity based on common cold?

 

 

 

 

Howdy,

Had a quick read of the paper, very interesting stuff indeed! It starts to solidify ideas that have been floating around for a while (I wondered at the outset whether the relative resistance of children to this virus was rooted in their frequent exposure to other common coronaviruses... certainly more frequent and recent exposure than many adults...somewhere in this thread or one of the previous ones is a comment from me on them being little coronavirus factories!...I'm sure there are a bunch of other reasons too, especially pre-existing conditions and also how mature and immature immune systems respond to things). Cross reactivity with immune responses elicited by common colds is certainly a complication that was considered in the evaluation of the serology tests and it is tempting to speculate (and now with more precise information) that it plays a role in determining whether you develop mild/asymptomatic disease, or more serious symptoms. I joked to a colleague recently that the Jenner Institute should look a bit more closely at their name for the solution to the problem (ok, joked is a bit strong, it's a very nerdy observation!...but Edward Jenner's approach to vaccination for smallpox was to use cowpox (which is where the word vaccine comes from), a related but less deadly virus...obviously a vaccine that doesn't cause any disease is the best approach, but maybe if we all got a dose of common coronavirus, we could ride this one out). The paper doesn't prove this would work of course, and their data on common cold history is patchy (self-reported data almost always is), but they do see significant cross-reactivity between the immune response to other coronaviruses and those elicited in patients who caught this one but didn't need to go to hospital (and previous mouse work on SARS suggested the same thing happened with that virus as well). So, very interesting data, certainly sheds some light on what is currently being colourfully referred to as "immunological dark matter" (this isn't a real term by the way, but I know what he means by it...something certainly seems to make some individuals intrinsically immune to SARS-CoV-2) and it might also help us at least partly explain how infection progresses differently in different individuals...what it means for where we currently are is too early to say though. 

[Sdsm123]

2 hours ago, fatyeti24 said:

Melvin's bosses must have had a word.

Isn’t Melvin the boss

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, Toilet Duck said:

Howdy,

Had a quick read of the paper, very interesting stuff indeed! It starts to solidify ideas that have been floating around for a while (I wondered at the outset whether the relative resistance of children to this virus was rooted in their frequent exposure to other common coronaviruses... certainly more frequent and recent exposure than many adults...somewhere in this thread or one of the previous ones is a comment from me on them being little coronavirus factories!...I'm sure there are a bunch of other reasons too, especially pre-existing conditions and also how mature and immature immune systems respond to things). Cross reactivity with immune responses elicited by common colds is certainly a complication that was considered in the evaluation of the serology tests and it is tempting to speculate (and now with more precise information) that it plays a role in determining whether you develop mild/asymptomatic disease, or more serious symptoms. I joked to a colleague recently that the Jenner Institute should look a bit more closely at their name for the solution to the problem (ok, joked is a bit strong, it's a very nerdy observation!...but Edward Jenner's approach to vaccination for smallpox was to use cowpox (which is where the word vaccine comes from), a related but less deadly virus...obviously a vaccine that doesn't cause any disease is the best approach, but maybe if we all got a dose of common coronavirus, we could ride this one out). The paper doesn't prove this would work of course, and their data on common cold history is patchy (self-reported data almost always is), but they do see significant cross-reactivity between the immune response to other coronaviruses and those elicited in patients who caught this one but didn't need to go to hospital (and previous mouse work on SARS suggested the same thing happened with that virus as well). So, very interesting data, certainly sheds some light on what is currently being colourfully referred to as "immunological dark matter" (this isn't a real term by the way, but I know what he means by it...something certainly seems to make some individuals intrinsically immune to SARS-CoV-2) and it might also help us at least partly explain how infection progresses differently in different individuals...what it means for where we currently are is too early to say though. 

Cool thanks. Very interesting, seems positive but wanted to check I hadnt misunderstood.  

[steviewevie]

so...all this over a bloody cold?!

[parsonjack]

Deaths up today from yesterday...outside the usual pattern of a consistent fall throughout the week.  A concern, or an outlier due to recent changes in the reporting?  Hoping the latter in that increase in deaths doesn't seem to be reflected in increase in cases/hospitalisations. 

[Toilet Duck]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

so...all this over a bloody cold?!

😜

Though if you had a cold recently, it might help...course, you don't know whether that cold you had over the winter was a coronavirus, or a rhinovirus, or a respiratory syncytial virus or an adenovirus or any number of other causes of the common cold...so, I wouldn't attach any certainty to it! 

[Cream Soda]

2 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

😜

Though if you had a cold recently, it might help...course, you don't know whether that cold you had over the winter was a coronavirus, or a rhinovirus, or a respiratory syncytial virus or an adenovirus or any number of other causes of the common cold...so, I wouldn't attach any certainty to it! 

Could this bode well in terms of reducing a second wave in the winter months when people start getting all the usual viruses again?

[Toilet Duck]

10 minutes ago, Cream Soda said:

Could this bode well in terms of reducing a second wave in the winter months when people start getting all the usual viruses again?

Honestly, it would be speculation...it is entirely possible of course, but I wouldn't pin all my hopes on it!

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

24 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Howdy,

Had a quick read of the paper, very interesting stuff indeed! It starts to solidify ideas that have been floating around for a while (I wondered at the outset whether the relative resistance of children to this virus was rooted in their frequent exposure to other common coronaviruses... certainly more frequent and recent exposure than many adults...somewhere in this thread or one of the previous ones is a comment from me on them being little coronavirus factories!...I'm sure there are a bunch of other reasons too, especially pre-existing conditions and also how mature and immature immune systems respond to things). Cross reactivity with immune responses elicited by common colds is certainly a complication that was considered in the evaluation of the serology tests and it is tempting to speculate (and now with more precise information) that it plays a role in determining whether you develop mild/asymptomatic disease, or more serious symptoms. I joked to a colleague recently that the Jenner Institute should look a bit more closely at their name for the solution to the problem (ok, joked is a bit strong, it's a very nerdy observation!...but Edward Jenner's approach to vaccination for smallpox was to use cowpox (which is where the word vaccine comes from), a related but less deadly virus...obviously a vaccine that doesn't cause any disease is the best approach, but maybe if we all got a dose of common coronavirus, we could ride this one out). The paper doesn't prove this would work of course, and their data on common cold history is patchy (self-reported data almost always is), but they do see significant cross-reactivity between the immune response to other coronaviruses and those elicited in patients who caught this one but didn't need to go to hospital (and previous mouse work on SARS suggested the same thing happened with that virus as well). So, very interesting data, certainly sheds some light on what is currently being colourfully referred to as "immunological dark matter" (this isn't a real term by the way, but I know what he means by it...something certainly seems to make some individuals intrinsically immune to SARS-CoV-2) and it might also help us at least partly explain how infection progresses differently in different individuals...what it means for where we currently are is too early to say though. 

Thanks TD, so essentially a section of the population could have immunity (but wouldn’t have antibodies for C19) so we could in theory reach ‘herd immunity’ with a much lower number of C19 infections than we might have expected? Or at least avoid a big second spike?

Edit: Could this also explain the relatively low number of infections (based on antibody tests) despite there being some evidence the virus had been here (in Europe) for longer than we may have thought?

Edited June 3, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[Toilet Duck]

Just now, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Thanks TD, so essentially a section of the population could have immunity (but wouldn’t have antibodies for C19) so we could in theory reach ‘herd immunity’ with a much lower number of C19 infections than we might have expected? Or at least avoid a big second spike?

No worries!...however, the problem with immune responses to common coronaviruses is that they don't last very long! 6-12 months is the commonly accepted duration (so we repeatedly get infected with them...and most common colds are caused by rhinoviruses anyway). Honestly, I've no idea how this might impact of a second wave or "herd immunity". I would still be placing a lot of my effort into containment using testing and contact tracing. Data on mask wearing is firming up as well, not sure how long governments can stick to "guidance" rather than making them mandatory in confined spaces. 

[dotdash79]

44 minutes ago, Neil said:

I don't have a copy, sorry.

I've just checked my mail for the first time in a few hours, and have found a request from FR to take it down (so I have). It says "we have a few amends to make our side", tho sounds like an updated version will be published somewhen soon-ish.

BBC still have the story up

Coronavirus: Is this a way of getting festivals going again? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-52893654

[BrotherEsau]

 

38 minutes ago, parsonjack said:

Deaths up today from yesterday...outside the usual pattern of a consistent fall throughout the week.  A concern, or an outlier due to recent changes in the reporting?  Hoping the latter in that increase in deaths doesn't seem to be reflected in increase in cases/hospitalisations. 

Though lower than it was 7 days ago (434) so the moving average continues to come down

[dotdash79]

Boris Johnson shocked that there is a possibility of a second wave of the virus like it has its own kinetic energy. 

[Crazyfool01]

42 minutes ago, parsonjack said:

Deaths up today from yesterday...outside the usual pattern of a consistent fall throughout the week.  A concern, or an outlier due to recent changes in the reporting?  Hoping the latter in that increase in deaths doesn't seem to be reflected in increase in cases/hospitalisations. 

Or something to do with VE Day celebrations? 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

If daily infections are still going down (which they are, albeit it slowly) the death figure is purely anomalous.

[parsonjack]

Just now, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

If daily infections are still going down (which they are, albeit it slowly) the death figure is purely anomalous.

Yeah this would be my reasoning too.....there's been no uptick in infections that the uptick in death's could at be attributed to.

[Mr.Tease]

It's maddening when you think how many lives would have been saved, how much shorter the lockdown could have been, how much safer this easing off of the lockdown would have been, if we'd just locked down sooner as EVERY other country was doing and as was blindingly obvious at the time. The fact Johnson isn't facing a forced resignation for that cataclysmic mistake (along with all the others) is beyond a joke

[parsonjack]

14 minutes ago, BrotherEsau said:

 

Though lower than it was 7 days ago (434) so the moving average continues to come down

Last Weds figure of 434 would have been skewed higher due to catch up after the Bank Holiday Monday so Thursday figure of 413 would be the better comparison, and 363 on Weds before.  Still a decreasing average overall but there is sign of a flattening out at present.

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

It's maddening when you think how many lives would have been saved, how much shorter the lockdown could have been, how much safer this easing off of the lockdown would have been, if we'd just locked down sooner as EVERY other country was doing and as was blindingly obvious at the time. The fact Johnson isn't facing a forced resignation for that cataclysmic mistake (along with all the others) is beyond a joke

Agreed. He really should resign for his appalling handling of this crises. 

[stuartbert two hats]

19 minutes ago, parsonjack said:

Last Weds figure of 434 would have been skewed higher due to catch up after the Bank Holiday Monday so Thursday figure of 413 would be the better comparison, and 363 on Weds before.  Still a decreasing average overall but there is sign of a flattening out at present.

 

Well, they've certainly flattened the curve.