Bod
Established Member
Are you very sure about any relaxation of the Lock-down, I'd heard that it was continuing unchanged.
Bod
Bod
Antibody Tests with Covid - 15% Population Rate in Germany
- Thread starter D_W
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Lons
Established Member
I must have missed that bit as from what I heard today there is no relaxation or change to the rules on going out in which case a visit to the countryside is out of order.Rorschach":2fo5on14 said:
I haven't researched it so might of course be wrong
Lons":2tykj681 said:
Specifically mentioned in the new Police guidance, travelling for exercise is permitted within reason. Also perfectly fine to take your lunch or a snack with you and stop and enjoy it while out.
First bit of common sense we have seen in over a month.
Lons
Established Member
Ok, didn't see that, I've been working outside all day and only heard the gov announcements. I suppose we have to trust the police to interpret "reasonable".
Doesn't affect me as I live in the countryside but feel really sorry for those living in high rise
Doesn't affect me as I live in the countryside but feel really sorry for those living in high rise
Lons":3upm1y4e said:
Fingers crossed. We live in a city but have lots of good countryside within 10-15 minutes in the car. We go for walks where I doubt there is another person within a mile but Police were telling us that was unsafe.
Looking forward to getting out again.
Bodgers
Established Member
Back to the thread subject. I see the Netherlands sampled thousands of blood donors with a COVID-19 antibody test and got a 3% result. Extrapolated across the population that means the death rate is much lower.
If that was the same result for the UK, over 1 million have already had the disease...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... bC_NJYFAfq
If that was the same result for the UK, over 1 million have already had the disease...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... bC_NJYFAfq
Bodgers":1fo78heb said:
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
Talking with family and looking back at connections/symptoms, I am now 90%+ convinced that we all (immediate family) had it in early February, one of those almost asymptomatic people is an 87yr old with cancer.
worn thumbs
Established Member
Over 1 million is a good start.Is it guaranteed that they have immunity and can't spread the virus?It will be even better if we can get to 61 million without a disproportionate number of deaths,but that may be difficult and it will take a while.As may developing a vaccine.So the big question has to be how do we progress from here?
AES
Established Member
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong worn thumbs, but AFAIK, the (technical) jury's still out as to whether or not having had Covid-19 has provided any sort of immunity, and if so, for how long.
FWIW, my own guess is that especially for those in the most at risk group/s, precautions will to some extent continue for a long time yet - most probably until a proven vaccine has been released and is "freely" available at reasonable cost.
BTW, when I say "precautions will to some extent continue for a long time yet" I'm not necessarily thinking of complete lock downs like now, but at least regular hand washing, no big open events (concerts, sports, etc,) and probably, keeping the 2 M distance as far as is possible (e.g. in public transport).
As said, that's a complete guess on my part, and to be honest, not even an educated guess - I'm no health or chemistry expert, on the contrary.
As far as I can see though, one of the biggest difficulties to come if I'm even partly correct is the 2 M distancing - imagine how that will work on the tube or in a bus, especially as time has run on for a bit and things have got "back to nearly normal" for most people.
NOT being alarmist, but I can see us old codgers and others with dodgy health being in this for quite some time to come yet.
FWIW, my own guess is that especially for those in the most at risk group/s, precautions will to some extent continue for a long time yet - most probably until a proven vaccine has been released and is "freely" available at reasonable cost.
BTW, when I say "precautions will to some extent continue for a long time yet" I'm not necessarily thinking of complete lock downs like now, but at least regular hand washing, no big open events (concerts, sports, etc,) and probably, keeping the 2 M distance as far as is possible (e.g. in public transport).
As said, that's a complete guess on my part, and to be honest, not even an educated guess - I'm no health or chemistry expert, on the contrary.
As far as I can see though, one of the biggest difficulties to come if I'm even partly correct is the 2 M distancing - imagine how that will work on the tube or in a bus, especially as time has run on for a bit and things have got "back to nearly normal" for most people.
NOT being alarmist, but I can see us old codgers and others with dodgy health being in this for quite some time to come yet.
AES you are correct (from what I have seen/heard in my research) that we do not yet know if immunity is gained from infection. We have to hope that is the case because if it isn't then a vaccine is even more of a waste of time that I think it currently is.
AES
Established Member
Interesting Rorschach! And I'm NOT being sarky ('onest!), but why do you think/know that a vaccine is a waste of time please?
I thought that vaccination for everything (just about) is the answer to the "lady's" prayer - e.g. I remember getting a smallpox jab on my arm and an anti-polio sugar lump as a kid.
I know (vaguely) that some parents in various countries have been against vaccinations for their kids, but to be quite honest I always put that down to lack of any education, people in poor countries, or weird (to me) religious beliefs and/or "conspiracy theorists".
Growing up was for me a time of "vaccination is unquestionably a good thing". Is that wrong (I repeat I know NOTHING of all this stuff really)?
I thought that vaccination for everything (just about) is the answer to the "lady's" prayer - e.g. I remember getting a smallpox jab on my arm and an anti-polio sugar lump as a kid.
I know (vaguely) that some parents in various countries have been against vaccinations for their kids, but to be quite honest I always put that down to lack of any education, people in poor countries, or weird (to me) religious beliefs and/or "conspiracy theorists".
Growing up was for me a time of "vaccination is unquestionably a good thing". Is that wrong (I repeat I know NOTHING of all this stuff really)?
Don't get me wrong, I think vaccination is fantastic, indeed I think it should be mandatory, but that's an argument for another day. I have seen first hand the devastating effects of Polio, Measles and Whopping Cough.
If an effective vaccine were available for C19 I would be all for using it. When I say it's waste of time I mean that literally, time. An effective and safe vaccine will take months, maybe even years to be available. Most scientists say it will take around a year and they are being optimistic. By the time the vaccine is available 1 of 2 scenarios will happen, the virus will have mutated slightly and the vaccine will be ineffective, or 2, so many people will have been infected that herd immunity will have kicked in. Personally my bets are on scenario 2, especially with the figures coming out showing that way more people have been infected than we realised and secondly (as seen in New Zealand), mortality rates are low, probably similar to that of seasonal flu and almost exclusively affecting those with serious underlying health conditions.
If an effective vaccine were available for C19 I would be all for using it. When I say it's waste of time I mean that literally, time. An effective and safe vaccine will take months, maybe even years to be available. Most scientists say it will take around a year and they are being optimistic. By the time the vaccine is available 1 of 2 scenarios will happen, the virus will have mutated slightly and the vaccine will be ineffective, or 2, so many people will have been infected that herd immunity will have kicked in. Personally my bets are on scenario 2, especially with the figures coming out showing that way more people have been infected than we realised and secondly (as seen in New Zealand), mortality rates are low, probably similar to that of seasonal flu and almost exclusively affecting those with serious underlying health conditions.
AES
Established Member
OK "R", I see what you mean.
In effect then I think we're both saying much the same thing, inasmuch as when I said the "wrinklies" and other unhealthy people (I fit both categories BTW!) will still have to take much the same precautions as everbody is doing today, and must continue to do so even after the brakes come off for everyone else - until a vaccine becomes available.
So then, it's "just" (!!) a question of when a working vaccine is available isn't it? "At least a year" is often said, and frankly that doesn't surprise me at all, even if everyone is working flat out, which I'm sure they are.
When I said I know nothing of all this stuff that was true, but before retirement my wife worked for a Pharma company for some years (not on the "technical" side, but she was making sure that every new joiner - they were having up to 30 new people per month at one stage - had an office, phone, computer, desk, chair, etc, etc). From what she said, when her company had a potential new drug it took literally several years before the regulatory authorities would allow release to "the general public" - that's after many special tests were performed and the results from those were studied in depth. So even if they "streamline" the normal process for this situation I guess it's still going to take "some time".
So what I was driving at in my last was that especially IF having had the disease only provides a limited immunity for a limited time (unknown at present), then the at-risk people are indeed going to need to be very careful and consistent with their precautions until said vaccine is available - as above, that assumes a "worst case" in that the "herd immunity" theory is proved to be not correct. So let's hope you ARE right and the herd immunity thing DOES work!
As a BTW, I'm just listening to R4 "World at 1" as I type this and one thing surprises me (or at least I don't understand it properly) - there's still a lot of argument from "those that should know" about the general public wearing face masks is/is not a good thing.
"Puzzled of Tunbridge Wells" ;-)
In effect then I think we're both saying much the same thing, inasmuch as when I said the "wrinklies" and other unhealthy people (I fit both categories BTW!) will still have to take much the same precautions as everbody is doing today, and must continue to do so even after the brakes come off for everyone else - until a vaccine becomes available.
So then, it's "just" (!!) a question of when a working vaccine is available isn't it? "At least a year" is often said, and frankly that doesn't surprise me at all, even if everyone is working flat out, which I'm sure they are.
When I said I know nothing of all this stuff that was true, but before retirement my wife worked for a Pharma company for some years (not on the "technical" side, but she was making sure that every new joiner - they were having up to 30 new people per month at one stage - had an office, phone, computer, desk, chair, etc, etc). From what she said, when her company had a potential new drug it took literally several years before the regulatory authorities would allow release to "the general public" - that's after many special tests were performed and the results from those were studied in depth. So even if they "streamline" the normal process for this situation I guess it's still going to take "some time".
So what I was driving at in my last was that especially IF having had the disease only provides a limited immunity for a limited time (unknown at present), then the at-risk people are indeed going to need to be very careful and consistent with their precautions until said vaccine is available - as above, that assumes a "worst case" in that the "herd immunity" theory is proved to be not correct. So let's hope you ARE right and the herd immunity thing DOES work!
As a BTW, I'm just listening to R4 "World at 1" as I type this and one thing surprises me (or at least I don't understand it properly) - there's still a lot of argument from "those that should know" about the general public wearing face masks is/is not a good thing.
"Puzzled of Tunbridge Wells" ;-)
I both hope I am right and I hope I am not right. I hope that I am right because I think that this virus is far less deadly than we have been led to believe so far, but I hope that I am not right because I think that we will only be over this when everyone who was going to die from it has sadly died. Rather morbid I know but we tend to ignore the fact that this happens a lot everyday without us paying much attention.
Bodgers
Established Member
This has been brought up before.AES":rbrlkvdh said:
Yes, the fact that antibodies are present means you will have immunity.
What's not clear is how long that would last for. If it was only a year or so it would at least be enough get through this pandemic.
There are reports of reinfection, particularly from South Korea, but more likely these are traces of the virus re-emerging or test issues.
We'd see lots more widespread reinfections and the presence of no antibodies in recoveries if this wasn't the case.
Presumably therapeutic drugs/ treatment may develop to mitigate the latter outcome, as well - here's an account of the blood plasma treatment they're looking into in UHW Cardiff: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52299404Rorschach":3cijw45a said:
And here in New York: https://time.com/5809955/blood-plasma-coronavirus/
ps Does anyone have a link to the police advice on travelling for exercise? Thanks
RobinBHM
Established Member
worn thumbs":be4humql said:
listening to a virologist she was saying that immunity may not last long, it could be 2 weeks, it could be 2 years. One thing she did say that was interesting is that the scientists have learnt as much about coronavirus in a few months as they learnt about AIDs in over a decade.
a rather concerning factor she mentioned is that parts of the virus particles stay in the body for quite a few weeks -even though there are no longer symptoms and no virus shedding, it means a test would come back positive. I should point out that is the test to see if you have the virus not an anti body test
RogerS
Established Member
Frankly I'm bored rigid reading about Covid-19. There are so many 'experts' out there. I'm sad that so many people are losing their lives. Even more sad at the mental anguish that it's causing many of the NHS staff and the workload they are having to endure. Annoyed at the stupid statements of Icke and even more annoyed at the cretins who believe him. Even more annoyed at that super-cretin Matt Hancock.
And slightly narked (I daren't up the Level of Narkedness) at my wife when she told me that because of my age I'd have to stay housebound for a year. "Sod that for a game of soldiers" I replied.
And slightly narked (I daren't up the Level of Narkedness) at my wife when she told me that because of my age I'd have to stay housebound for a year. "Sod that for a game of soldiers" I replied.
Bodgers
Established Member
RobinBHM":2ycchdn5 said:
Unlikely it would be as little as 2 weeks, likely they’d be huge amount of reported reinfections already.
lurker
Le dullard de la commune
If you look at the deaths per million in a population, throughout Europe.
Germany ought to be telling us how they managed to have four times less deaths than anyone else.
....... Or their national statistics are being generated by redeployed VW emissions engineers.
Germany ought to be telling us how they managed to have four times less deaths than anyone else.
....... Or their national statistics are being generated by redeployed VW emissions engineers.
