Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

All things Rugby
User avatar
Leinster in London
Posts: 5981
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Leinster in London »

Could someone provide me with a refresher. Why is there an assumption that once infected and recovered, then there is a low probability of being re-infected.

I understand the idea of antibodies being present to mobilise immediately to fight any near future attack.
I am trying to balance against having had flu 3 times in the last 5/6 years. I suspect the protection gained this year will be innefective next year.
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 13988
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by message #2527204 »

Leinster in London wrote:Could someone provide me with a refresher. Why is there an assumption that once infected and recovered, then there is a low probability of being re-infected.

I understand the idea of antibodies being present to mobilise immediately to fight any near future attack.
I am trying to balance against having had flu 3 times in the last 5/6 years. I suspect the protection gained this year will be innefective next year.
I don't think there is that assumption. Just that if you are infected you have some resistance and won't pass it on.

Happy to be corrected.
User avatar
Saint
Posts: 15686
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: South Oxfordshire

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Saint »

Leinster in London wrote:Could someone provide me with a refresher. Why is there an assumption that once infected and recovered, then there is a low probability of being re-infected.

I understand the idea of antibodies being present to mobilise immediately to fight any near future attack.
I am trying to balance against having had flu 3 times in the last 5/6 years. I suspect the protection gained this year will be innefective next year.

Comparing to flu is more like comparing to a completely different coronavirus.

Once you've had a specific flu you have immunity to the virus for some time - but there's a lot of different flu strains out there that are very different to each other.

While COVID19 has different strains, at the moment they are all incredibly similar, so it's likely that immunity will apply to all, at least for a couple of years. But immunity to COVID19 won't grant you immjnity to SARS or MERS for instance
User avatar
Leinster in London
Posts: 5981
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Leinster in London »

message #2527204 wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:Could someone provide me with a refresher. Why is there an assumption that once infected and recovered, then there is a low probability of being re-infected.

I understand the idea of antibodies being present to mobilise immediately to fight any near future attack.
I am trying to balance against having had flu 3 times in the last 5/6 years. I suspect the protection gained this year will be innefective next year.
I don't think there is that assumption. Just that if you are infected you have some resistance and won't pass it on.

Happy to be corrected.
You seem to be saying that you do not pass it on if you are infected a second time. As that is a bit too much of a stretch, I do not think you want to go that far.
Herd immunity is based on the idea I cannot re-infect, but does that mean with each new season of covid (mutated from previous year) a brand new herd needs to be established,or a new lockdown period required?
User avatar
Saint
Posts: 15686
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: South Oxfordshire

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Saint »

Leinster in London wrote:
message #2527204 wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:Could someone provide me with a refresher. Why is there an assumption that once infected and recovered, then there is a low probability of being re-infected.

I understand the idea of antibodies being present to mobilise immediately to fight any near future attack.
I am trying to balance against having had flu 3 times in the last 5/6 years. I suspect the protection gained this year will be innefective next year.
I don't think there is that assumption. Just that if you are infected you have some resistance and won't pass it on.

Happy to be corrected.
You seem to be saying that you do not pass it on if you are infected a second time. As that is a bit too much of a stretch, I do not think you want to go that far.
Herd immunity is based on the idea I cannot re-infect, but does that mean with each new season of covid (mutated from previous year) a brand new herd needs to be established,or a new lockdown period required?
Depends how far the mutation has gone and also will change from person to person
User avatar
Pat the Ex Mat
Posts: 6229
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Pat the Ex Mat »

Clogs wrote:
I don't think this thing will hit 60% population infection. I don't think any transmissible disease has ever been able to. I am happy to be corrected.
You seem to be somewhat morbidly obsessed with this - go for a walk
User avatar
Leinster in London
Posts: 5981
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Leinster in London »

Saint wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
message #2527204 wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:Could someone provide me with a refresher. Why is there an assumption that once infected and recovered, then there is a low probability of being re-infected.

I understand the idea of antibodies being present to mobilise immediately to fight any near future attack.
I am trying to balance against having had flu 3 times in the last 5/6 years. I suspect the protection gained this year will be innefective next year.
I don't think there is that assumption. Just that if you are infected you have some resistance and won't pass it on.

Happy to be corrected.
You seem to be saying that you do not pass it on if you are infected a second time. As that is a bit too much of a stretch, I do not think you want to go that far.
Herd immunity is based on the idea I cannot re-infect, but does that mean with each new season of covid (mutated from previous year) a brand new herd needs to be established,or a new lockdown period required?
Depends how far the mutation has gone and also will change from person to person
Yes, that's about what I was thinking.
I'll have to do a bit of research on flu's and try understanding them a bit more, especially the idea of why I no longer seem to have protection year on year.
I've not previously taken vaccines for them, but after the spell at the beginning of the year I decided I should actively look for one next autumn.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41679
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Clogs wrote:
I don't think this thing will hit 60% population infection. I don't think any transmissible disease has ever been able to. I am happy to be corrected.
If that is true I can't see how it will get to 60% with the increased levels of hygiene. People will slip back but not to previous levels.
User avatar
Fat Albert
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Trantor

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Fat Albert »

Death rate world wide is circa 0.1% of population, known infection rate circa 0.3%, even New York State with 20,000,000 crammed into high rise living and with massive public transit system the circa 22,000 deaths is still only 0.11% (highest rate worldwide)...

Will the physical and mental issues associated with lockdown produce consequences that are greater than the disease? More importantly will we ever know?, given differing government policy (e.g. Germany death certificates only state Covid-19 if there are no co-morbidities, UK DCs state Covid-19 if there is a positive test even if the death was due to say a heart attack).

There are 30,000,000 unemployed in the US in a land where social support does not compare to say, Europe. Millions of families are struggling to put food on the table, what are the consequences for domestic abuse?, anxiety/depression related suicide? Is the cure worse than the disease?
User avatar
Laurent
Posts: 17503
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: balbriggan
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Laurent »

Fat Albert wrote:Death rate world wide is circa 0.1% of population, known infection rate circa 0.3%, even New York State with 20,000,000 crammed into high rise living and with massive public transit system the circa 22,000 deaths is still only 0.11% (highest rate worldwide)...

Will the physical and mental issues associated with lockdown produce consequences that are greater than the disease? More importantly will we ever know?, given differing government policy (e.g. Germany death certificates only state Covid-19 if there are no co-morbidities, UK DCs state Covid-19 if there is a positive test even if the death was due to say a heart attack).

There are 30,000,000 unemployed in the US in a land where social support does not compare to say, Europe. Millions of families are struggling to put food on the table, what are the consequences for domestic abuse?, anxiety/depression related suicide? Is the cure worse than the disease?
people dying in the streets oustside hospitals crammed to the gills is more appealing ?
Biffer29
Posts: 1865
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:18 pm

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Biffer29 »

Leinster in London wrote:Could someone provide me with a refresher. Why is there an assumption that once infected and recovered, then there is a low probability of being re-infected.

I understand the idea of antibodies being present to mobilise immediately to fight any near future attack.
I am trying to balance against having had flu 3 times in the last 5/6 years. I suspect the protection gained this year will be innefective next year.
For starters, it's not flu. In virus terms it's very different.

Coronaviruses are single stranded RNA viruses, Influenza viruses contain 6 to 8 strands of RNA. When viruses reproduce, errors in copying RNA are made, resulting in slight changes. With more strands of RNA to be copied, there are more changes, or mutations, in the flu viruses. This means you get more rapid change of the genetic material and new strains developing far more quickly. The more rapidly the genetic material changes, the more rapidly any immunity wears off.

The 2-3 year thing comes from studies of the SARS virus. CV-19 shares about 80% of its genetic material with SARS-CoV2 which is the virus that causes CV-19. So the assumption is that a similar immunity happens in both. It's a reasonable assumption, but it's only a assumption.
Biffer29
Posts: 1865
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:18 pm

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Biffer29 »

Fat Albert wrote:Death rate world wide is circa 0.1% of population, known infection rate circa 0.3%,
Um, no.
User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 18569
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Raggs »

UK numbers still dropping. And a huge jump in serology tests today too, 21k of them run, went from 50k-71k. Might get some good results on estimated percentage of population exposed.
robmatic
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:11 pm

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by robmatic »

Fat Albert wrote:Death rate world wide is circa 0.1% of population, known infection rate circa 0.3%, even New York State with 20,000,000 crammed into high rise living and with massive public transit system the circa 22,000 deaths is still only 0.11% (highest rate worldwide)...
New York State may have a 20 million population, but only 10 million are living in New York City with the dirty subway etc., the rest of the state is quite large and spread out. New York City has experienced 24,000 excess deaths over the last two months and an estimated 20% of the population has been exposed. So about 0.2% overall rate of death and an Infection Fatality Rate of around 1%.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41679
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Laurent wrote:
Fat Albert wrote:Death rate world wide is circa 0.1% of population, known infection rate circa 0.3%, even New York State with 20,000,000 crammed into high rise living and with massive public transit system the circa 22,000 deaths is still only 0.11% (highest rate worldwide)...

Will the physical and mental issues associated with lockdown produce consequences that are greater than the disease? More importantly will we ever know?, given differing government policy (e.g. Germany death certificates only state Covid-19 if there are no co-morbidities, UK DCs state Covid-19 if there is a positive test even if the death was due to say a heart attack).

There are 30,000,000 unemployed in the US in a land where social support does not compare to say, Europe. Millions of families are struggling to put food on the table, what are the consequences for domestic abuse?, anxiety/depression related suicide? Is the cure worse than the disease?
people dying in the streets oustside hospitals crammed to the gills is more appealing ?
Yep they should never have had the lock down in NY. They would have coped easily with 20m exposed to the virus on a daily basis.
User avatar
Leinster in London
Posts: 5981
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Leinster in London »

Biffer29 wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:Could someone provide me with a refresher. Why is there an assumption that once infected and recovered, then there is a low probability of being re-infected.

I understand the idea of antibodies being present to mobilise immediately to fight any near future attack.
I am trying to balance against having had flu 3 times in the last 5/6 years. I suspect the protection gained this year will be innefective next year.
For starters, it's not flu. In virus terms it's very different.

Coronaviruses are single stranded RNA viruses, Influenza viruses contain 6 to 8 strands of RNA. When viruses reproduce, errors in copying RNA are made, resulting in slight changes. With more strands of RNA to be copied, there are more changes, or mutations, in the flu viruses. This means you get more rapid change of the genetic material and new strains developing far more quickly. The more rapidly the genetic material changes, the more rapidly any immunity wears off.

The 2-3 year thing comes from studies of the SARS virus. CV-19 shares about 80% of its genetic material with SARS-CoV2 which is the virus that causes CV-19. So the assumption is that a similar immunity happens in both. It's a reasonable assumption, but it's only a assumption.
Thanks, that helps.
Is there any measure of what constitutes a new strain? ie 3 or 5++ mutations or is it just any of the spectrum of single mutations that survive to reproduce.
User avatar
Leinster in London
Posts: 5981
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Leinster in London »

Raggs wrote:UK numbers still dropping. And a huge jump in serology tests today too, 21k of them run, went from 50k-71k. Might get some good results on estimated percentage of population exposed.
Surely a bit early for extracting population%.
On what basis were serology tests done? Known survivors?, HCW?
Unless completely random, the figure will be biased to overstate the %.
User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 18569
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Raggs »

Leinster in London wrote:
Raggs wrote:UK numbers still dropping. And a huge jump in serology tests today too, 21k of them run, went from 50k-71k. Might get some good results on estimated percentage of population exposed.
Surely a bit early for extracting population%.
On what basis were serology tests done? Known survivors?, HCW?
Unless completely random, the figure will be biased to overstate the %.
No idea how they were run. But 20k is more than enough to get a good mix of a population if that's what they were attempting to do.
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 28831
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Chickenrunning...

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Sandstorm »

Not all US States are starving during lockdown. Maui for example is paying everyone on furlough $1200 a week! Even those who earned less than this while working. Good luck getting them to want return to work flipping burgers in a couple of months. :lol:
User avatar
Leinster in London
Posts: 5981
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Leinster in London »

Raggs wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
Raggs wrote:UK numbers still dropping. And a huge jump in serology tests today too, 21k of them run, went from 50k-71k. Might get some good results on estimated percentage of population exposed.
Surely a bit early for extracting population%.
On what basis were serology tests done? Known survivors?, HCW?
Unless completely random, the figure will be biased to overstate the %.
No idea how they were run. But 20k is more than enough to get a good mix of a population if that's what they were attempting to do.
It may be a silly perspective, but I will run with it. As I was not included at any level, testing/tested, invited, aware of,........ etc, it must mean there is a fundamental bias in the result.
It will probably overstate the %, but I suppose even so it may provide a ceiling for the % infected.
If it comes to 60% it seems to high, but if it comes as less than 10%, it would hint that there is still a lot of room for more infections.
User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 18569
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Raggs »

Leinster in London wrote:
Raggs wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
Raggs wrote:UK numbers still dropping. And a huge jump in serology tests today too, 21k of them run, went from 50k-71k. Might get some good results on estimated percentage of population exposed.
Surely a bit early for extracting population%.
On what basis were serology tests done? Known survivors?, HCW?
Unless completely random, the figure will be biased to overstate the %.
No idea how they were run. But 20k is more than enough to get a good mix of a population if that's what they were attempting to do.
It may be a silly perspective, but I will run with it. As I was not included at any level, testing/tested, invited, aware of,........ etc, it must mean there is a fundamental bias in the result.
It will probably overstate the %, but I suppose even so it may provide a ceiling for the % infected.
If it comes to 60% it seems to high, but if it comes as less than 10%, it would hint that there is still a lot of room for more infections.
Are you consulted before every telephone poll done in the buildup for an election? I'm going to presume not.
User avatar
Leinster in London
Posts: 5981
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Leinster in London »

Raggs wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
Raggs wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
Raggs wrote:UK numbers still dropping. And a huge jump in serology tests today too, 21k of them run, went from 50k-71k. Might get some good results on estimated percentage of population exposed.
Surely a bit early for extracting population%.
On what basis were serology tests done? Known survivors?, HCW?
Unless completely random, the figure will be biased to overstate the %.
No idea how they were run. But 20k is more than enough to get a good mix of a population if that's what they were attempting to do.
It may be a silly perspective, but I will run with it. As I was not included at any level, testing/tested, invited, aware of,........ etc, it must mean there is a fundamental bias in the result.
It will probably overstate the %, but I suppose even so it may provide a ceiling for the % infected.
If it comes to 60% it seems to high, but if it comes as less than 10%, it would hint that there is still a lot of room for more infections.
Are you consulted before every telephone poll done in the buildup for an election? I'm going to presume not.
I used to be, i was polled for 4 elections in Ireland in the 1980's.
I understood why, and realised they were probably deficient. Nevertheless I think their overall picture turned out to be not too bad.

So where were 20k random people found? From the queues of those waiting for the original test?
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 13988
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by message #2527204 »

Leinster in London wrote:
Raggs wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
Raggs wrote:UK numbers still dropping. And a huge jump in serology tests today too, 21k of them run, went from 50k-71k. Might get some good results on estimated percentage of population exposed.
Surely a bit early for extracting population%.
On what basis were serology tests done? Known survivors?, HCW?
Unless completely random, the figure will be biased to overstate the %.
No idea how they were run. But 20k is more than enough to get a good mix of a population if that's what they were attempting to do.
It may be a silly perspective, but I will run with it. As I was not included at any level, testing/tested, invited, aware of,........ etc, it must mean there is a fundamental bias in the result.
It will probably overstate the %, but I suppose even so it may provide a ceiling for the % infected.
If it comes to 60% it seems to high, but if it comes as less than 10%, it would hint that there is still a lot of room for more infections.
Why on earth do you imagine it would be 60%¿?
User avatar
Leinster in London
Posts: 5981
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Leinster in London »

message #2527204 wrote:
Why on earth do you imagine it would be 60%¿?
Who knows what it would be. There are circumstances that if it does not come back as 100% then it might be considered a failure.
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 13988
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by message #2527204 »

Leinster in London wrote:
message #2527204 wrote:
Why on earth do you imagine it would be 60%¿?
Who knows what it would be. There are circumstances that if it does not come back as 100% then it might be considered a failure.
I've concluded that I'm not talking about the same things as you...but looking back, I can't work out what you're speculating on.
Biffer29
Posts: 1865
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:18 pm

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Biffer29 »

Leinster in London wrote:
Biffer29 wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:Could someone provide me with a refresher. Why is there an assumption that once infected and recovered, then there is a low probability of being re-infected.

I understand the idea of antibodies being present to mobilise immediately to fight any near future attack.
I am trying to balance against having had flu 3 times in the last 5/6 years. I suspect the protection gained this year will be innefective next year.
For starters, it's not flu. In virus terms it's very different.

Coronaviruses are single stranded RNA viruses, Influenza viruses contain 6 to 8 strands of RNA. When viruses reproduce, errors in copying RNA are made, resulting in slight changes. With more strands of RNA to be copied, there are more changes, or mutations, in the flu viruses. This means you get more rapid change of the genetic material and new strains developing far more quickly. The more rapidly the genetic material changes, the more rapidly any immunity wears off.

The 2-3 year thing comes from studies of the SARS virus. CV-19 shares about 80% of its genetic material with SARS-CoV2 which is the virus that causes CV-19. So the assumption is that a similar immunity happens in both. It's a reasonable assumption, but it's only a assumption.
Thanks, that helps.
Is there any measure of what constitutes a new strain? ie 3 or 5++ mutations or is it just any of the spectrum of single mutations that survive to reproduce.
Not really. It’s not a hard and fast definition.
User avatar
6.Jones
Posts: 2972
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by 6.Jones »

It's not only mutation. Viruses can merge with other viruses when they infect the same cell. Then you have the Isadore Duncan and Anatole France dilemma. It's fine if it gets Isadore's looks and Anatole's brains, but god help us the other way round.
bimboman
Posts: 70043
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

One reason we took it hard.


https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1260950259259318273

Diabetes in 25% of deaths so far.
Varsity Way
Posts: 1326
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:50 pm

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Varsity Way »

bimboman wrote:One reason we took it hard.


https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1260950259259318273

Diabetes in 25% of deaths so far.
Bag of 6 donuts 80p. They are lovely though.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 20752
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Enzedder »

One for the Yanks

It’s the greatest fire! Tremendous job to the firefighters! They did great! Very safe!


Image
User avatar
happyhooker
Posts: 23129
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by happyhooker »

this is only going to exacerbate the situation.

just spent a while on a call to a friend who helped set up the homeless accommodation response in london. i can't put the emails she's had up here, but the MEN has run with it.

cancelling the funding for keeping the homeless off the streets strikes me as a resoundingly bad idea atmo.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... t-18254318
User avatar
Clogs
Posts: 4982
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Clogs »

Anonymous. wrote:
Clogs wrote:
I don't think this thing will hit 60% population infection. I don't think any transmissible disease has ever been able to. I am happy to be corrected.
If that is true I can't see how it will get to 60% with the increased levels of hygiene. People will slip back but not to previous levels.

Spot on. With the correct protocols in place Distancing/Washing/Tracing (& potentially masks) etc we can dramatically impact on the spread of this thing. Several nations have proven this.

One of the biggest challenges going forward is going to be mass public transport.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 18150
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Ted. »

6.Jones wrote:It's not only mutation. Viruses can merge with other viruses when they infect the same cell. Then you have the Isadore Duncan and Anatole France dilemma. It's fine if it gets Isadore's looks and Anatole's brains, but god help us the other way round.
To add another factor, I read that it also depends on the type of immune response a particular virus triggers as to whether you immune system will have a long term or short term memory of the virus.
User avatar
terryfinch
Posts: 5557
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by terryfinch »

London R down to 0.4 and could be virus free in two weeks.
bimboman
Posts: 70043
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

terryfinch wrote:London R down to 0.4 and could be virus free in two weeks.

London records just 24 new covid-19 cases a day

Yorkshire 4,000 new cases though. It’s almost like when the lockdown was timed they knew it was different in different areas.
User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 18569
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Raggs »

bimboman wrote:
terryfinch wrote:London R down to 0.4 and could be virus free in two weeks.

London records just 24 new covid-19 cases a day

Yorkshire 4,000 new cases though. It’s almost like when the lockdown was timed they knew it was different in different areas.
4000 in a day?
bimboman
Posts: 70043
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Raggs wrote:
bimboman wrote:
terryfinch wrote:London R down to 0.4 and could be virus free in two weeks.

London records just 24 new covid-19 cases a day

Yorkshire 4,000 new cases though. It’s almost like when the lockdown was timed they knew it was different in different areas.
4000 in a day?

They’re spread out over the days aren’t they? Either way London could get moving again.
User avatar
MungoMan
Posts: 14134
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Coalfalls

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by MungoMan »

terryfinch wrote:London R down to 0.4 and could be virus free in two weeks.
Assuming you can keep those germy northerners out
bimboman
Posts: 70043
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

As we unlock we need another hand washing campaign.....
User avatar
terryfinch
Posts: 5557
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by terryfinch »

MungoMan wrote:
terryfinch wrote:London R down to 0.4 and could be virus free in two weeks.
Assuming you can keep those germy northerners out

It sounded like R is still above 1 in Scotland and Wales but below 1 in all English regions and NI. This explains the differing easing of the lockdown across nations I guess. Scotland now has higher infection rate than England.
Post Reply