When will this shit end?

[priest17]

11 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Non essential aisles???

 

 

Despite you already being in the hotbed of the virus already, we will not let you down the chocolate or beer aisle that will make no difference to the spread because a modicum of happiness when locked inside your house is non-essential.

(I have no idea what aisles they've closed, just using some examples of what other people have suggested are non-essential).

[Rumblestripe]

9 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Nothing in the law as to non essential shopping.

No, and I didn't mean to imply that there was jsut that people were (in this case) just getting what they needed which reduces the time that they are in the supermarket which is probably the most risky thing they'll do this week.

Having had to endure a 45 minute queue to get into our supermarket to get stuff for my 93 year old dad I just wish that people would make a list before they go in, get what they need and get the fukk out. The SAS approach to shopping if you will.

[priest17]

Oh shit I agree with Priti Patel, I genuinely think I might be in the wrong now.

[gizmoman]

There's a sinister side to the recent police actions, it's easy to say they are just interpreting the rules wrong but they seem to be trying to take on far too much authority. I've also noticed every time they drive down my road (I live on a main road) they have sirens going. There are either far more emergencies than normal or they are trying to make a point to the public that are there. 

[Sasperella]

11 minutes ago, priest17 said:

Oh shit I agree with Priti Patel, I genuinely think I might be in the wrong now.

Hahaha me too man, me too. I'd say this is pretty solid proof that Covid has turned the world on its head.

Is it too early for a beer*?

 

*Don't worry.. I've got some in!

Edited April 10, 2020 by Sasperella

[Rumblestripe]

To be fair to the Fuzz, they are having to deal with numbnuts who think "lockdown" doesn't apply to them so continue to behave like dicks regardless of anyone else and this puts da fuzz just at much at risk as ambulance crews.

If the instructions from Johnson et al were clearer their job would be easier.

[Toilet Duck]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

slightly confused for why you didn't get it. It was govt policy from 1953 to 2005 to vaccinate all school children.

There was perhaps a parental opt-out, but from what I can remember almost all (if not all) kids had it in my time.

Anyway (sorry, I'm a bit distracted this morning!), the suggestion vis a vis the BCG vaccine is that it does not make you immune, but it increases the chances of a mild or asymptomatic infection due to how it boosts the immune system. So, it's not that with vast swathes of the country vaccinated, they would not get coronavirus, they will, but when they do they are more likely to get a mild case if their BCG vaccination has produced a lasting immunological response. There are so many things that can influence this (age, time since the vaccination, but also underlying genetic variation and other factors that reduce innate immunity (lifestyle, comorbidities etc)), so I would expect a wide variation in the levels of BCG-driven innate immunity in any population (and we see that most COVID cases are mild, around about 80%, so what's causing that?). There are trials now administering the BCG vaccine in healthcare workers to see if it helps. If I was to design a study, I would be looking at TB antibody titres in confirmed cases who had a mild infection compared to those who had a more severe infection. We don't have a serology test for coronavirus (so we can't see at the moment who has had it), but we've had a validated serology test for TB antibodies for donkey's years (we can even distinguish between the antibodies made by the vaccine from those made following a TB infection). It might not turn out to be true, but I'd rule it out definitively before abandoning it. 

[Zoo Music Girl]

17 minutes ago, priest17 said:

Oh shit I agree with Priti Patel, I genuinely think I might be in the wrong now.

Yeah same. Worrying innit.

[zahidf]

6 minutes ago, Rumblestripe said:

To be fair to the Fuzz, they are having to deal with numbnuts who think "lockdown" doesn't apply to them so continue to behave like dicks regardless of anyone else and this puts da fuzz just at much at risk as ambulance crews.

If the instructions from Johnson et al were clearer their job would be easier.

I dunno, no one has said anything about essential items in a shop. It feels like some police forces need to wind their neck in

[Sasperella]

8 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Anyway (sorry, I'm a bit distracted this morning!), the suggestion vis a vis the BCG vaccine is that it does not make you immune, but it increases the chances of a mild or asymptomatic infection due to how it boosts the immune system. So, it's not that with vast swathes of the country vaccinated, they would not get coronavirus, they will, but when they do they are more likely to get a mild case if their BCG vaccination has produced a lasting immunological response. There are so many things that can influence this (age, time since the vaccination, but also underlying genetic variation and other factors that reduce innate immunity (lifestyle, comorbidities etc)), so I would expect a wide variation in the levels of BCG-driven innate immunity in any population (and we see that most COVID cases are mild, around about 80%, so what's causing that?). There are trials now administering the BCG vaccine in healthcare workers to see if it helps. If I was to design a study, I would be looking at TB antibody titres in confirmed cases who had a mild infection compared to those who had a more severe infection. We don't have a serology test for coronavirus (so we can't see at the moment who has had it), but we've had a validated serology test for TB antibodies for donkey's years (we can even distinguish between the antibodies made by the vaccine from those made following a TB infection). It might not turn out to be true, but I'd rule it out definitively before abandoning it. 

These are all really fascinating posts - thanks!! 

Stupid question, but don't some people have natural immunity to TB? We got the BCG at school and I remember having a the heaf test, and if it reacted to didn't have to have the BCG. I obviously have no idea how/why someone would be naturally immune to TB, but how would that work with all of this?

[Toilet Duck]

9 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

Interesting post.

One of my mates mentioned something about anti malaria tablets ( chloroquine) improving the treatment / reducing the death rates of people with the coronavirus. However, this was some weeks back so not sure where that is at now. 

So the data on Chloroquine is a little less firm than the BCG angle. Vast populations don't routinely take it so the type of epidemiological evidence that is driving the interest in BCG can't be ascertained. At the moment, there's anecdotal evidence that it can work, but it hasn't been fully tested in a proper trial yet (there's loads of them underway at the moment...in fact, if you are interested, there's a COVID trials tracker up and running here). Again, it's entirely possible that it could play a role (as well as loads of other existing drugs that can be re-purposed, for example angiotensin receptor blockers used for high blood pressure), we just need to see them working in a controlled setting to roll them out as standard of care. Loads of breakthrough come from what are known as n of 1 studies (in fact, the first AIDS treatments were discovered this way), so anecdotal observations play a crucial role in finding new options for treatment (case studies have been a core part of medicine since it began). Like the BCG thing, it's worth looking into and if it works out, we'll have dodged a bullet. The more things we check, the better the chances of actually finding an answer. 

[Toilet Duck]

6 minutes ago, Sasperella said:

These are all really fascinating posts - thanks!! 

Stupid question, but don't some people have natural immunity to TB? We got the BCG at school and I remember having a the heaf test, and if it reacted to didn't have to have the BCG. I obviously have no idea how/why someone would be naturally immune to TB, but how would that work with all of this?

Immunology is crazy! (I have some colleagues who think its all made up, so many different cells with different properties reflecting every single little exposure we have to the environment for our entire lives). Thing is, it's complex, not made up. It is entirely possible for TB antibodies to be transferred in the womb, and certainly possible for them to be transferred by breast feeding. We get quite a bit of our immunity from our mothers (thank them when you see them next!). So, I guess some people will already have a degree of immunity and not need a vaccine. 

Edit: When this pandemic starts to be studied in the future, there are a ton of different angles that will be explored. Epidemiologists will look at all sorts of things to find correlations with disease outcome. Breast feeding, vaccination rates, obesity, type II diabetes, hypertension, and a whole list of things that we haven't even thought of will be correlated with how the disease spread and how patients fared once they became infected. There's obvious things that impact on lung function, but there will be less obvious things that correlate with outcome, just need to look for them. We've been working for a while on how prescription drug use prior to diagnosis impacts on cancer outcomes, turns out that many routine drugs if you were taking them before you developed cancer influence how the disease will develop and either harm or boost your chances of surviving it. It will be the same here (and for every disease). 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Toilet Duck
Further thoughts

[whitehorses]

23 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

There's a sinister side to the recent police actions, it's easy to say they are just interpreting the rules wrong but they seem to be trying to take on far too much authority. I've also noticed every time they drive down my road (I live on a main road) they have sirens going. There are either far more emergencies than normal or they are trying to make a point to the public that are there. 

While I’m out running and see them cruising our lanes they’ve always got lights on, never the sirens. Looks weird and intimidating but they always wave furiously and smiling. Find it a bit odd. 

[whitehorses]

49 minutes ago, Avalon_Fields said:

Quote (So, no 'close dancing' then!): Coronavirus has not been spread by shopping or going to the hairdresser, a leading virologist has said after studying a hotspot for the virus.

Prof Hendrik Streeck, leading the response in one of Germany's worst-hit regions, said Covid-19 might not be spread as easily as people believe.

In his research, Prof Streeck said the home of an infected family his team visited "did not have any live virus on any surface" including on phones, door knobs or even the pet cat's fur.

He told German TV "there are no proven infections while shopping or at the hairdresser" and that Germany's "patient zero" only infected her colleagues and not other guests or diners at the hotel where she was staying.

"The virus spreads in other places: the party in Ischgl, the club in Berlin, the football game in Bergamo," he said.

"We know it's not a smear infection that is transmitted by touching objects, but that close dancing and exuberant celebrations have led to infections."

Back to not washing hands then  

Gosh all this seemingly contradictory stuff is confusing. But ok, I think I can avoid dancing with strangers for the foreseeable  

[steviewevie]

55 minutes ago, Avalon_Fields said:

Quote (So, no 'close dancing' then!): Coronavirus has not been spread by shopping or going to the hairdresser, a leading virologist has said after studying a hotspot for the virus.

Prof Hendrik Streeck, leading the response in one of Germany's worst-hit regions, said Covid-19 might not be spread as easily as people believe.

In his research, Prof Streeck said the home of an infected family his team visited "did not have any live virus on any surface" including on phones, door knobs or even the pet cat's fur.

He told German TV "there are no proven infections while shopping or at the hairdresser" and that Germany's "patient zero" only infected her colleagues and not other guests or diners at the hotel where she was staying.

"The virus spreads in other places: the party in Ischgl, the club in Berlin, the football game in Bergamo," he said.

"We know it's not a smear infection that is transmitted by touching objects, but that close dancing and exuberant celebrations have led to infections."

oh right, so shopping is fine, as long as you don't get off with anyone.

[Zoo Music Girl]

 

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

 

'Good intentions by an over exuberant officer' is an interesting euphemism 

[Toilet Duck]

8 minutes ago, whitehorses said:

Back to not washing hands then  

Gosh all this seemingly contradictory stuff is confusing. But ok, I think I can avoid dancing with strangers for the foreseeable  

This in a nutshell is the problem with Science and Scientists (and I'm one of them!). It's why we have systematic reviews, because different studies give different results (it's also why you get sensational headlines about coffee causing cancer and then a few years later see another one saying it protects you...or some other such sensationalist nonsense, I just made that up, but you get the idea). Its entirely possible for studies to contradict each other (they aren't completely controlled and conducted in exactly the same way on the identical people in identical environments, so there's a lot of noise that skews results). There are other fairly robust studies on not just this coronavirus, but SARS, MERS and other respiratory infections that would contradict this. The study above will eventually be bundled together with all the other studies and the over-riding result will be better than the results of a single study. My interpretation of this is that you can get infected via fomites (surfaces) based on the results of other studies, but not always! 

[Avalon_Fields]

14 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

oh right, so shopping is fine, as long as you don't get off with anyone.

How many people do you get off with at the supermarket!?!? (Am I missing out on life...) 

[WhoamI?]

39 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

There's a sinister side to the recent police actions, it's easy to say they are just interpreting the rules wrong but they seem to be trying to take on far too much authority. I've also noticed every time they drive down my road (I live on a main road) they have sirens going. There are either far more emergencies than normal or they are trying to make a point to the public that are there. 

There is no traffic on our roads here, why do they need to use sirens?  Everywhere may of course not be the same, but 🤔?

[WhoamI?]

8 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

This in a nutshell is the problem with Science and Scientists ... (it's also why you get sensational headlines about coffee causing cancer and then a few years later see another one saying it protects you...or some other such sensationalist nonsense,

I usually blame journalists for the sensational headlines, not scientists.

[steviewevie]

This is my prediction using my totally unscientific brain...I think we will be at the peak of the death rate in a week or two and new cases will be starting to drop off...then we'll get another week or two of lockdown to see if death rate starts falling...and then into May we'll get a gradual lifting of restrictions. By late June and into summer life will start to return to normality...except still no large mass gatherings. We might get an increase of cases in winter, or not an increase but more cases of flu etc making more restrictions possible to keep NHS being overwhelmed. Next year a vaccine starts to get manufactured and distributed. Economies splutter along, taxes are increased to pay for all this...some nutters argue that we should have another period of austerity...

Edited April 10, 2020 by steviewevie

[Toilet Duck]

Just now, WhoamI? said:

I usually blame journalists for the sensational headlines, not scientists.

You're not far wrong to be honest. I've given interviews on papers we have published, received copy from them to approve, its all fine and then I see what's printed and they've chopped out all of the bits the preach caution in interpreting the result and just leave what they think is the bit that will get people to read it. There are plenty of scientists who are entirely capable of over-interpreting their data though! 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

11 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

Hello stuartbert two hats,

Yeah, I think what I said was accurate at the time, but now hopefully not so. I still think that this could go on for much longer than people expect / hope for. Obviously if a vaccine is found sooner rather than later then that'll be a game changer.

I haven't looked in to it, but apparently the virus started in bats, then went to pangolins, and then humans. Makes me wonder why our livestock and domestic animals might not be susceptible too. 

 

Livestock is susceptible, hence the swine flu outbreak. But it’s really just a questions of probability. Bats carry a number of nasty viruses, that’s well know. It’s not necessarily that easy for those nasties to jump to another species, but it happens relatively regularly which we now know to our cost. There are lots of ways it can happen, an animal being bitten by a bat, or eating it’s droppings as an example, but every time that happens a virus doesn’t then necessarily jump species, and even then it doesn’t necessarily jump species again to humans. We don’t eat a huge variety of animals in the U.K. and we have pretty high standards of welfare and hygiene. Certainly it’s not very common at all for the few animals we do eat to mix together, not until they’ve been slaughtered at least when they’re in the supermarket or butchers ready to be eaten. So while it can happen, it’s an extremely low, virtually non existent risk. Pangolins and bats are both wild animals, the chance of them coming into contact with each other is far greater, as is the risk that a virus manages to make the jump across species, and then again to humans if humans insist on eating them. The Chinese practice of wet markets greatly increases the odds of a virus making that leap from bats. To another species, to humans. Keeping possibly hundreds of different animals together who don’t mix in the wild, alive and dead and then slaughtering them in close contact is just a question of increasing the probability of something happening.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[Toilet Duck]

6 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Livestock is susceptible, hence the swine flu outbreak. But it’s really just a questions of probability. Bats carry a number of nasty viruses, that’s well know. It’s not necessarily that easy for those nasties to jump to another species, but it happens relatively regularly which we now know to our cost. There are lots of ways it can happen, an animal being bitten by a bat, or eating it’s droppings as an example, but every time that happens a virus doesn’t then necessarily jump species, and even then it doesn’t necessarily jump species again to humans. We don’t eat a huge variety of animals in the U.K. and we have pretty high standards of welfare and hygiene. Certainly it’s not very common at all for the few animals we do eat to mix together, not until they’ve been slaughtered at least when they’re in the supermarket or butchers ready to be eaten. So while it can happen, it’s an extremely low, virtually non existent risk. Pangolins and bats are both wild animals, the chance of them coming into contact with each other is far greater, as is the risk that a virus manages to make the jump across species, and then again to humans if humans insist on eating them. The Chinese practice of wet markets greatly increases the odds of a virus making that leap from bats. To another species, to humans. Keeping possibly hundreds of different animals together who don’t mix in the wild, alive and dead and then slaughtering them in close contact is just a question of increasing the probability of something happening.

And after SARS they started to regulate the wet markets a bit more, but as time went by, that became more lax. Pangolins are still illegal to trade, so they are traded on the black market in wet markets, but not listed in the inventory. This will all happen again if there isn't concentrated international pressure to stop this (and then it becomes politics, not health...we don't allow whaling, but Norway and Japan seem have found a way around it, so no doubt China will insist that wet markets are the cultural norm...the only way I can see them being properly regulated is massive fines (or damages) for outbreaks that originate in them...that too is political and I'm not a politician so I don't know how you do it).