When will this shit end?

[Toilet Duck]

5 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

If you didn't take the self-replicating part out, would that mean it would make you sick? Or is that largely unrelated?

No, it’s a harmless virus that doesn’t usually cause illness in humans. Gives monkeys a runny nose (if it did cause an illness in humans it would be a mild cold). But, removing the ability to replicate removes the possibility of it accumulating errors when it did and acquiring the ability to cause us harm. So there’s two layers of safety built in, harmless to begin with and unable to make more of itself. 

[Chawk]

 this recent CDC study found as many as 60% of transmissions could be from asymptomatic cases*. If people with symptoms isolate, where as asymptomatic people go out in the community, it's possible there'd be selective pressure for a strain that people don't develop symptoms for. On the other hand ,whilst on paper a strain that makes you cough more should be more transmissible, it'll only proliferate if people with it actually go out in the community and don't isolate. 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707

Quote

Question  What proportion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread is associated with transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from persons with no symptoms?

Findings  In this decision analytical model assessing multiple scenarios for the infectious period and the proportion of transmission from individuals who never have COVID-19 symptoms, transmission from asymptomatic individuals was estimated to account for more than half of all transmission.

Meaning  The findings of this study suggest that the identification and isolation of persons with symptomatic COVID-19 alone will not control the ongoing spread of SARS-CoV-2.

 

*'35 percent of new cases from people who infect others before they show symptoms and 24 percent from people who never develop symptoms at all'

Edited January 9, 2021 by Chawk

[Mr.Tease]

13 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Oh yes, they actually had to take the self-replicating part out of the virus they used for the Oxford and J&J jabs. We use replication incompetent viruses in the lab all the time to engineer human cells (modified HIV viruses to be precise, because they integrate into human DNA and permanently alter it). Have to be very careful with them (so we break them up into different pieces and only combine them when we want to put them into a cell). We use the viruses they made the Oxford vaccine out of as well, but they don’t infect everything, so if your cell of interest doesn’t have the receptor for them, you have to engineer that as well and it’s a bit of a pain in the arse. 
 

edit: read that back and realised I sound a bit like Churchill...oh yes. 

What if we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light? 

And then supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way?

And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?

 

[stuartbert two hats]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

What if we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light? 

And then supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way?

And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?

 

It's a good job random, unqualified members of this forum aren't powerful world leaders. Imagine if Trump tried to force through a genetically modified virus that replicated out of control, mutated and killed us all?

[squirrelarmy]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

What if we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light? 

And then supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way?

And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?

 

Are you saying we should drink bleach?

I’ve got a bottle next to me ready to down

[Toilet Duck]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

What if we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light? 

And then supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way?

And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?

 

You might be on to something! (Honestly, how the f*ck did he think these might be a good idea?...we use both to sterilise surfaces where we grow viruses in the lab, but at no point has anyone ever thought, hey, why don’t we use this stuff on ourselves! The mind boggles).  

[Mr.Tease]

3 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

You might be on to something! (Honestly, how the f*ck did he think these might be a good idea?...we use both to sterilise surfaces where we grow viruses in the lab, but at no point has anyone ever thought, hey, why don’t we use this stuff on ourselves! The mind boggles).  

Imagine being the poor scientist who has to respond to that suggestion live on television 😂

[Fuzzy Afro]

Sunday Times suggesting that the government have pencilled in 23rd March as the date that restrictions will be relaxed. How fitting and ironic. 

[steviewevie]

15 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

What if we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light? 

And then supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way?

And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?

 

I shone a torch up my arse and I haven't had covid since, so maybe something in it.

[dotdash79]

21 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

You might be on to something! (Honestly, how the f*ck did he think these might be a good idea?...we use both to sterilise surfaces where we grow viruses in the lab, but at no point has anyone ever thought, hey, why don’t we use this stuff on ourselves! The mind boggles).  

Line of Ajax will clean out the nasal passage that’s my thinking (it’s not)

[Ryan1984]

18 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Sunday Times suggesting that the government have pencilled in 23rd March as the date that restrictions will be relaxed. How fitting and ironic. 

Yes, because Covid is like an MOT?

[Punksnotdead]

21 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Are you saying we should drink bleach?

I’ve got a bottle next to me ready to down

I'll stick to rum thanks! And Jesus didn't I need it after watching the terrible football matches all day!!!!

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

3 hours ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

@FestivalJamie revisiting yesterday discussion on 'local' I decided to scratch an itch I have and I've currently got a job running to tell me how many properties classified as residential aren't within 3 miles (the example) of a 'chain supermarket'. 

The methodology is as follows: 

1. Filter the circa 33million addresses in the UK by its classification type. I've used Residential Dwelling. So for the example of a tower block this will count each of the units in the tower block not just the block. The data in using is the most complete and accurate in class. 

2. I've used the best available data to apply a 3mile buffer to each of the 7800 ish "Chain supermarkets" in the UK. I've then 'dissolved' these and aggregated them into one effectively I've created a polygon showing where in GB is within 3 miles of a 'chain supermarket'. The aggregation is purely for simplicity leading to a performance increase in step 3. 

3. The subset of data from step 1 has its spatial relationship tested with the geometry from step 2. 

This will then tell me how many properties are within 3 mikes (as the crow flies) of a supermarket and how many households would starve if such a restriction was out in place. 

Of the almost 4,991,602 properties currently tested 83,816 are going to be hungry. 

Obviously there are some limitations to this approach not least that you don't have to shop at a chain supermarket but it's the easiest method I have avalaible to me without going to too much effort. Same by not using a network (Roads) but again this is too much effort and I don't have the computing power to do that at home (or at work) without expense. 

Tomorrow I'm going to run the same analysis against access points to publically accessable greenspace - taken from this data. 

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-government/products/open-map-greenspace 

Thank you for giving making me wonder how many properties aren't within 3 miles of a supermarket and filling 30 minutes of another boring day in lockdown! 

The results are in:

33,364,052 properties in the data (not including NI, Scottish Islands and a few others)

29,161,681 classified as residential dwellings. 

27,850,457 within 3 miles (straight line distance) of a chain supermarket. 

1,311,224 properties not within 3 miles (straight line distance) of a chain supermarket.

Image shows the distribution of 1,311,224 properties not within 3 miles of a supermarket. 

Edited January 9, 2021 by RobertProsineckisLighter
Inclusion of image.

[kalifire]

28 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Sunday Times suggesting that the government have pencilled in 23rd March as the date that restrictions will be relaxed. How fitting and ironic. 

Really don’t see how they can “pencil in” any date whatsoever when it’s obvious their plan is having minimal impact on lowering transmission. They have to be guided by the data, not some arbitrary calendar. 

[gizmoman]

36 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

You might be on to something! (Honestly, how the f*ck did he think these might be a good idea?...we use both to sterilise surfaces where we grow viruses in the lab, but at no point has anyone ever thought, hey, why don’t we use this stuff on ourselves! The mind boggles).  

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-in-general/treatment/other/ultraviolet-light

 

[chestwig]

38 minutes ago, Chawk said:

 this recent CDC study found as many as 60% of transmissions could be from asymptomatic cases*. If people with symptoms isolate, where as asymptomatic people go out in the community, it's possible there'd be selective pressure for a strain that people don't develop symptoms for. On the other hand ,whilst on paper a strain that makes you cough more should be more transmissible, it'll only proliferate if people with it actually go out in the community and don't isolate. 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707

*'35 percent of new cases from people who infect others before they show symptoms and 24 percent from people who never develop symptoms at all'

This is utter codshit. There have been about 4 studies that should asymptomatic (i.e healthy) is not a vector in driving transmission in the pandemic. There was a large study of 10 million in Wuhan that found no evidence of this kind of transmission.

 

If you're sick stay at home or get a test to confirm its not covid. Simple as that. 

Lockdowns are no good now the virus is endemic. May was well end them, protect vunerable people and get everyone else back to normal.

The reason we are in continued lockdown down as far as I can see is to increase vaccine demand.

 

[Ozanne]

3 minutes ago, kalifire said:

Really don’t see how they can “pencil in” any date whatsoever when it’s obvious their plan is having minimal impact on lowering transmission. They have to be guided by the data, not some arbitrary calendar. 

Yeah how can they have a date in mind, either the data is good enough before and restrictions can be relaxed or they have to go longer. They never learn do they. 

[gizmoman]

41 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

You might be on to something! (Honestly, how the f*ck did he think these might be a good idea?...we use both to sterilise surfaces where we grow viruses in the lab, but at no point has anyone ever thought, hey, why don’t we use this stuff on ourselves! The mind boggles).  

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajd.12015

[zahidf]

5 minutes ago, kalifire said:

Really don’t see how they can “pencil in” any date whatsoever when it’s obvious their plan is having minimal impact on lowering transmission. They have to be guided by the data, not some arbitrary calendar. 

The evidence is that people aren't following the lockdowns any more as they used to do, no enforcement to an extent is impossible. If you have a date it may end, you'll get more people following it.

[Fuzzy Afro]

They can pencil it in because that’s when they realistically believe the vulnerable will have been vaccinated surely 

[Ozanne]

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

The evidence is that people aren't following the lockdowns any more as they used to do, no enforcement to an extent is impossible. If you have a date it may end, you'll get more people following it.

What evidence?

[hodgey123]

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

The evidence is that people aren't following the lockdowns any more as they used to do, no enforcement to an extent is impossible. If you have a date it may end, you'll get more people following it.

This is all well and good but when the date has already added a month on to the first ‘review’ of the lockdown measures it doesn’t exactly inspire those not currently complying that it is worth it? 

[Ozanne]

If it’s even true (which I doubt) they’ll just be doing it to look good to the public without basing the decision on any data or facts.

[Toilet Duck]

10 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-in-general/treatment/other/ultraviolet-light

 

Ah now...you’re reaching dude! I’ve had PUVA for psoriasis, topical treatment wasn’t what he was suggesting and you know it! 😁 We use radiotherapy for cancer too, but he wasn’t suggesting we try that either (though to be fair, standard cytotoxic chemotherapy isn’t much better than some of the things he suggested). Photodynamic therapy has come a long way, though it suffered from charlatans promising the earth with it when it was first developed. Still has potential (and indeed is being used...the key thing is the use of photosensitizers to guide where the cellular/viral/bacterial destruction takes place). It’s possible he misunderstood some proper science, but more likely he heard about some of the crackpot ideas that have been peddled about ingesting bleach (and maybe picked up the UV idea from the fact that it sterilises surfaces in the lab, but the wavelengths of UV we use for that would alter your DNA).

[Fuzzy Afro]

22 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Yeah how can they have a date in mind, either the data is good enough before and restrictions can be relaxed or they have to go longer. They never learn do they. 

Do you even know what “pencilled in” means?