Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

All things Rugby
bimboman
Posts: 65082
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Mahoney wrote:
Rinkals wrote:As I interpret that graph, it's all deaths? Terryfinch was referring to 'flu (and pneumonia) deaths, wasn't he?
Attempts to differentiate between cause of death will be difficult and hence controversial. Straight deaths is not controversial, there have been very few cases where whether or not someone was dead was in dispute 10 days later.

The allegation was that in some way the classification of cause of death was being used to fudge the number of COVID deaths. If anything it looks like being the other way around - we have below average total deaths while still reporting substantial COVID deaths.

We are reporting substantial historical covid deaths.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 28900
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

bimboman wrote:
Mahoney wrote:
Rinkals wrote:As I interpret that graph, it's all deaths? Terryfinch was referring to 'flu (and pneumonia) deaths, wasn't he?
Attempts to differentiate between cause of death will be difficult and hence controversial. Straight deaths is not controversial, there have been very few cases where whether or not someone was dead was in dispute 10 days later.

The allegation was that in some way the classification of cause of death was being used to fudge the number of COVID deaths. If anything it looks like being the other way around - we have below average total deaths while still reporting substantial COVID deaths.

We are reporting substantial historical covid deaths.
I'd imagine the numbers were almost none existent in prior years....
ovalball
Posts: 11271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by ovalball »

bimboman wrote:
Mahoney wrote:
Rinkals wrote:As I interpret that graph, it's all deaths? Terryfinch was referring to 'flu (and pneumonia) deaths, wasn't he?
Attempts to differentiate between cause of death will be difficult and hence controversial. Straight deaths is not controversial, there have been very few cases where whether or not someone was dead was in dispute 10 days later.

The allegation was that in some way the classification of cause of death was being used to fudge the number of COVID deaths. If anything it looks like being the other way around - we have below average total deaths while still reporting substantial COVID deaths.

We are reporting substantial historical covid deaths.
It'd be hard to report deaths that weren't historical - unless you have a time machine.
bimboman
Posts: 65082
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

ovalball wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Mahoney wrote:
Rinkals wrote:As I interpret that graph, it's all deaths? Terryfinch was referring to 'flu (and pneumonia) deaths, wasn't he?
Attempts to differentiate between cause of death will be difficult and hence controversial. Straight deaths is not controversial, there have been very few cases where whether or not someone was dead was in dispute 10 days later.

The allegation was that in some way the classification of cause of death was being used to fudge the number of COVID deaths. If anything it looks like being the other way around - we have below average total deaths while still reporting substantial COVID deaths.

We are reporting substantial historical covid deaths.
It'd be hard to report deaths that weren't historical - unless you have a time machine.

Good point, well made.
User avatar
Sensible Stephen
Posts: 2912
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Sensible Stephen »

Looks like the Russian vaccine is going to be stage 3 tested for us by the entire population of Vietnam. :?
User avatar
Short Man Syndrome
Posts: 5922
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Front and centre.

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Short Man Syndrome »

Sensible Stephen wrote:Looks like the Russian vaccine is going to be stage 3 tested for us by the entire population of Vietnam. :?
How very Hanoing.
User avatar
CrazyIslander
Posts: 19091
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by CrazyIslander »

Short Man Syndrome wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:Looks like the Russian vaccine is going to be stage 3 tested for us by the entire population of Vietnam. :?
How very Hanoing.
I know what you minh.
User avatar
Short Man Syndrome
Posts: 5922
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Front and centre.

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Short Man Syndrome »

CrazyIslander wrote:
Short Man Syndrome wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:Looks like the Russian vaccine is going to be stage 3 tested for us by the entire population of Vietnam. :?
How very Hanoing.
I know what you minh.
BOOM! THAT’S what I’m talking about.
User avatar
CrazyIslander
Posts: 19091
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by CrazyIslander »

Short Man Syndrome wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Short Man Syndrome wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:Looks like the Russian vaccine is going to be stage 3 tested for us by the entire population of Vietnam. :?
How very Hanoing.
I know what you minh.
BOOM! THAT’S what I’m talking about.
GONG! You got it.
User avatar
Short Man Syndrome
Posts: 5922
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Front and centre.

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Short Man Syndrome »

Phenom an’ all...
User avatar
Pat the Ex Mat
Posts: 5432
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Pat the Ex Mat »

Short Man Syndrome wrote:Phenom an’ all...
What's all this Hue and cry?
User avatar
CrazyIslander
Posts: 19091
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by CrazyIslander »

Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Short Man Syndrome wrote:Phenom an’ all...
What's all this Hue and cry?
If the vaccine proves to be fatal atleast they're going out with a PANG!
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19661
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 »

Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Short Man Syndrome wrote:Phenom an’ all...
What's all this Hue and cry?

Well, Da'nang
User avatar
6.Jones
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by 6.Jones »

Enzedder wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Short Man Syndrome wrote:Phenom an’ all...
What's all this Hue and cry?

Well, Da'nang
Is this an apocalypse now?
User avatar
MungoMan
Posts: 13052
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Coalfalls

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by MungoMan »

6.Jones wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Short Man Syndrome wrote:Phenom an’ all...
What's all this Hue and cry?

Well, Da'nang
Is this an apocalypse now?
'kinh oath.

POSTSCRIPT

One more shit gag like that and the mods will be tempted to banh mi
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 58131
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by CM11 »

User avatar
EverReady
Posts: 30863
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by EverReady »

In shocking news Covid my enter the body when you breath :lol:
User avatar
6.Jones
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by 6.Jones »

Don;t know if RedRebel, but here's the first confirmed reinfection. There's been a lot of talk about suspected reinfections but now we know.
First Covid-19 reinfection documented in Hong Kong, researchers say

Researchers in Hong Kong on Monday reported what appears to be the first confirmed case of Covid-19 reinfection, a 33-year-old man who was first infected by SARS-CoV-2 in late March and then, four and a half months later, seemingly contracted the virus again while traveling in Europe.

The case raises questions about the durability of immune protection from the coronavirus. But it was also met with caution by other scientists, who questioned the extent to which the case pointed to broader concerns about reinfection.

There have been scattered reports of cases of Covid-19 reinfection. Those reports, though, have been based on anecdotal evidence and largely attributed to flaws in testing.

But in this case, researchers at the University of Hong Kong sequenced the virus from the patient’s two infections and found that they did not match, indicating the second infection was not tied to the first. There was a difference of 24 nucleotides — the “letters” that make up the virus’ RNA — between the two infections.

“This is the world’s first documentation of a patient who recovered from Covid-19 but got another episode of Covid-19 afterwards,” the researchers said in a statement.

Experts cautioned that this patient’s case could be an outlier among the tens of millions of cases around the world and that immune protection may generally last longer than just a few months. They said that ongoing studies tracking patients who had recovered from Covid-19 would help reach more definitive conclusions. They also noted that the man’s second case was milder than his first, indicating that his immune system was providing some level of protection, even if it could not prevent the infection entirely.
User avatar
icon
Posts: 657
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by icon »

Experts Alarmed as CDC Abruptly Changes COVID-19 Advice Amid Reports of Interference

https://www.sciencealert.com/cdc-change ... r-covid-19


After previously encouraging people without COVID-19 symptoms to get tested if they have been exposed to someone diagnosed with the virus, US health authorities have abruptly reversed their position without a clear explanation.

The changes in guidance were quietly made to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website on Monday amid US media reports of political interference from the White House.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that the US should do less testing, and blamed testing for making it appear as though the country is doing poorly against the pandemic.

This is not true: though the US is testing at a high level, that is because its outbreak is worse than any other country in the world, with more than 5.8 million confirmed cases and almost 180,000 deaths.

The CDC's site previously said: "Testing is recommended for all close contacts of persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

"Because of the potential for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, it is important that contacts of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection be quickly identified and tested."

The site now says: "If you have been in close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with a COVID-19 infection for at least 15 minutes but do not have symptoms, you do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or State or local public health officials recommend you take one."

Anthony Fauci: "I was under general anesthesia in the operating room and was not part of any discussion or deliberation regarding the new testing recommendations.

"I am concerned about the interpretation of these recommendations and worried it will give people the incorrect assumption that asymptomatic spread is not of great concern. In fact, it is," he added.
User avatar
6.Jones
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by 6.Jones »

That's criminal.
C69
Posts: 39334
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by C69 »

icon wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:24 pm Experts Alarmed as CDC Abruptly Changes COVID-19 Advice Amid Reports of Interference

https://www.sciencealert.com/cdc-change ... r-covid-19


After previously encouraging people without COVID-19 symptoms to get tested if they have been exposed to someone diagnosed with the virus, US health authorities have abruptly reversed their position without a clear explanation.

The changes in guidance were quietly made to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website on Monday amid US media reports of political interference from the White House.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that the US should do less testing, and blamed testing for making it appear as though the country is doing poorly against the pandemic.

This is not true: though the US is testing at a high level, that is because its outbreak is worse than any other country in the world, with more than 5.8 million confirmed cases and almost 180,000 deaths.

The CDC's site previously said: "Testing is recommended for all close contacts of persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

"Because of the potential for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, it is important that contacts of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection be quickly identified and tested."

The site now says: "If you have been in close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with a COVID-19 infection for at least 15 minutes but do not have symptoms, you do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or State or local public health officials recommend you take one."

Anthony Fauci: "I was under general anesthesia in the operating room and was not part of any discussion or deliberation regarding the new testing recommendations.

"I am concerned about the interpretation of these recommendations and worried it will give people the incorrect assumption that asymptomatic spread is not of great concern. In fact, it is," he added.
Ffs as usual right morons don't give a shit
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19661
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 »

Image
Varsity Way
Posts: 1201
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:50 pm

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Varsity Way »

I tried to get a test today knowing that Plymouth is the nearest test centre about 70 miles away. Can't get anything online through the government website or phoning 119. A friend in Plymouth has been offered a test in Inverness. This seems farcical.
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 10762
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by message #2527204 »

Varsity Way wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 3:42 pm I tried to get a test today knowing that Plymouth is the nearest test centre about 70 miles away. Can't get anything online through the government website or phoning 119. A friend in Plymouth has been offered a test in Inverness. This seems farcical.
Kids have gone back to school and every one of them consequently has a cold. People panic and get a test for a cold. People are getting themselves tested when they're told to isolate - f**king idiot british public who haven't understood a word of what's been going on for the last 10 months. And we asked them to vote on EU membership FFS.
C69
Posts: 39334
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by C69 »

message #2527204 wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:45 pm
Varsity Way wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 3:42 pm I tried to get a test today knowing that Plymouth is the nearest test centre about 70 miles away. Can't get anything online through the government website or phoning 119. A friend in Plymouth has been offered a test in Inverness. This seems farcical.
Kids have gone back to school and every one of them consequently has a cold. People panic and get a test for a cold. People are getting themselves tested when they're told to isolate - f**king idiot british public who haven't understood a word of what's been going on for the last 10 months. And we asked them to vote on EU membership FFS.
Total bollocks no kids in my childs year have colds or are off sick. My daughtet says attendance is excellent and all the kids are being sensible..
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 10762
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by message #2527204 »

C69 wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:55 pm
message #2527204 wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:45 pm
Varsity Way wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 3:42 pm I tried to get a test today knowing that Plymouth is the nearest test centre about 70 miles away. Can't get anything online through the government website or phoning 119. A friend in Plymouth has been offered a test in Inverness. This seems farcical.
Kids have gone back to school and every one of them consequently has a cold. People panic and get a test for a cold. People are getting themselves tested when they're told to isolate - f**king idiot british public who haven't understood a word of what's been going on for the last 10 months. And we asked them to vote on EU membership FFS.
Total bollocks no kids in my childs year have colds or are off sick. My daughtet says attendance is excellent and all the kids are being sensible..
Dozen off sick at the boys school sore throats and colds. Three off football and 1/2 dozen shy at rugby today. Maybe you're in a good area. Kids always get snotty noses going back to school and bring it home - you can't keep them home with a snotty nose, can you?
User avatar
EverReady
Posts: 30863
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by EverReady »

The official position in Ireland is nasal conditions alone i.e. sneezing and runny nose do not mean somebody needs to stay off school.
bimboman
Posts: 65082
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

An anecdotal example of one from the experts. :thumbup:
User avatar
towny
Posts: 17852
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by towny »

A runny nose - is that a Covid symptom? Think you’re right to go with that. But if we all stopped going out when we were sick....
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 58131
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by CM11 »

There is a virus going around at the moment here that comes with a cough. It's fúcked up our back to school anyway because schools aren't accepting kids with coughs. Our kids have already lost 35 school days between them already where it would have been 5 under normal conditions (1 for 3 days, 1 for 2).
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 28900
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

message #2527204 wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 7:42 pm
C69 wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:55 pm
message #2527204 wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:45 pm
Varsity Way wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 3:42 pm I tried to get a test today knowing that Plymouth is the nearest test centre about 70 miles away. Can't get anything online through the government website or phoning 119. A friend in Plymouth has been offered a test in Inverness. This seems farcical.
Kids have gone back to school and every one of them consequently has a cold. People panic and get a test for a cold. People are getting themselves tested when they're told to isolate - f**king idiot british public who haven't understood a word of what's been going on for the last 10 months. And we asked them to vote on EU membership FFS.
Total bollocks no kids in my childs year have colds or are off sick. My daughtet says attendance is excellent and all the kids are being sensible..
Dozen off sick at the boys school sore throats and colds. Three off football and 1/2 dozen shy at rugby today. Maybe you're in a good area. Kids always get snotty noses going back to school and bring it home - you can't keep them home with a snotty nose, can you?
I teach and our attendances are more or less as high as ever. Only kids off are those who have to quarantine and they more or less all returned late last week.
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 58131
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by CM11 »

Israel locking down. Went completely out of control after initially suppressing it and while they showed few extra deaths in the initial surge they're now heading towards a 1% CFR.
User avatar
Bindi
Posts: 7093
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Plum

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Bindi »

Good article in Nature. Herd immunity is only likely to come from a vaccine in the near term. Things will proably not be good in the Northern winter. All obvious stuff, but needs repeating.
COVID-19 herd immunity: where are we?

Herd immunity is a key concept for epidemic control. It states that only a proportion of a population needs to be immune (through overcoming natural infection or through vaccination) to an infectious agent for it to stop generating large outbreaks. A key question in the current COVID-19 pandemic is how and when herd immunity can be achieved and at what cost.

Herd immunity is achieved when one infected person in a population generates less than one secondary case on average, which corresponds to the effective reproduction number R (that is, the average number of persons infected by a case) dropping below 1 in the absence of interventions. In a population in which individuals mix homogeneously and are equally susceptible and contagious, R = (1 − pC)(1 − pI)R0 (equation 1), where pC is the relative reduction in transmission rates due to non-pharmaceutical interventions; pI is the proportion of immune individuals; and R0 is the reproduction number in the absence of control measures in a fully susceptible population. R0 may vary across populations and over time, depending on the nature and number of contacts among individuals and potentially environmental factors. In the absence of control measures (pC = 0), the condition for herd immunity (R < 1, where R = (1 − pI)R0) is therefore achieved when the proportion of immune individuals reaches pI = 1 – 1/R0. For SARS-CoV-2, most estimates of R0 are in the range 2.5–4, with no clear geographical pattern. For R0 = 3, as estimated for France1, the herd immunity threshold for SARS-CoV-2 is therefore expected to require 67% population immunity. It also follows from equation 1 that in the absence of herd immunity, the intensity of social distancing measures necessary to control transmission decreases as population immunity grows. For example, to contain spread for R0 = 3, transmission rates need to be reduced by 67% if the population is fully susceptible, but by only 50% if a third of the population is already immune.

There are situations when herd immunity might be achieved before the population immunity reaches pI = 1 − 1/R0. For example, if some individuals are more likely to get infected and to transmit because they have more contacts, these super-spreaders will likely get infected first. As a result, the population of susceptible individuals gets rapidly depleted of these super-spreaders and the pace of transmission slows down. However, it remains difficult to quantify the impact of this phenomenon in the context of COVID-19. For R0 = 3, Britton et al.2 showed that, if we account for age-specific contact patterns (for example, individuals aged >80 years have substantially less contacts than those aged 20–40 years), the herd immunity threshold drops from 66.7% to 62.5%. If we further assume that the number of contacts varies substantially between individuals within the same age group, herd immunity could be achieved with only 50% population immunity. However, in this scenario, the departure from the formula pI = 1 − 1/R0 is only expected if it is always the same set of individuals that are potential super-spreaders. If super-spreading is driven by events rather than by individuals, or if control measures reduce or modify the set of potential super-spreaders, there may be limited impact on herd immunity. Another factor that may feed into a lower herd immunity threshold for COVID-19 is the role of children in viral transmission. Preliminary reports find that children, particularly those younger than 10 years, may be less susceptible and contagious than adults3, in which case they may be partially omitted from the computation of herd immunity.

Population immunity is typically estimated through cross-sectional surveys of representative samples using serological tests that measure humoral immunity. Surveys performed in countries affected early during the COVID-19 epidemic, such as Spain and Italy, suggest that nationwide prevalence of antibodies varies between 1 and 10%, with peaks around 10–15% in heavily affected urban areas4. Interestingly, this is consistent with earlier predictions made by mathematical models, using death counts reported in national statistics and estimates of the infection fatality ratio, that is, the probability of death given infection1,5. Some have argued that humoral immunity does not capture the full spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 protective immunity and that the first epidemic wave has resulted in higher levels of immunity across the population than measured through cross-sectional antibody surveys. Indeed, T cell reactivity has been documented in the absence of detectable humoral immunity among contacts of patients6, although the protective nature and the duration of the observed response are unknown. Another unknown is whether pre-existing immunity to common cold coronaviruses may provide some level of cross-protection. Several studies reported cross-reactive T cells in 20–50% of SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals7. However, whether these T cells can prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection or protect against severe disease remains to be determined7. Preliminary reports of surveys in children show no correlation between past infections with seasonal coronaviruses and susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection8. Clearly, no sterilizing immunity through cross-protection was evident during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak on the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, where 70% of the young adult sailors became infected before the epidemic came to a halt9.

Taking these considerations into account, there is little evidence to suggest that the spread of SARS-CoV-2 might stop naturally before at least 50% of the population has become immune. Another question is what it would take to achieve 50% population immunity, given that we currently do not know how long naturally acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 lasts (immunity to seasonal coronaviruses is usually relatively short lived), particularly among those who had mild forms of disease, and whether it might take several rounds of re-infection before robust immunity is attained. Re-infection has only been conclusively documented in a very limited number of cases so far and it is unclear whether this is a rare phenomenon or may prove to become a common occurrence. Likewise, how a previous infection would affect the course of disease in a re-infection, and whether some level of pre-existing immunity would affect viral shedding and transmissibility, is unknown.

With flu pandemics, herd immunity is usually attained after two to three epidemic waves, each interrupted by the typical seasonality of influenza virus and more rarely by interventions, with the help of cross-protection through immunity to previously encountered influenza viruses, and vaccines when available10. For COVID-19, which has an estimated infection fatality ratio of 0.3–1.3%1,5, the cost of reaching herd immunity through natural infection would be very high, especially in the absence of improved patient management and without optimal shielding of individuals at risk of severe complications. Assuming an optimistic herd immunity threshold of 50%, for countries such as France and the USA, this would translate into 100,000–450,000 and 500,000–2,100,000 deaths, respectively. Men, older individuals and those with comorbidities are disproportionally affected, with infection fatality ratios of 3.3% for those older than 60 years and increased mortality in individuals with diabetes, cardiac disease, chronic respiratory disease or obesity. The expected impact would be substantially smaller in younger populations.

An effective vaccine presents the safest way to reach herd immunity. As of August 2020, six anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have reached phase III trials, so it is conceivable that some will become available by early 2021, although their safety and efficacy remain to be established. Given that the production and delivery of a vaccine will initially be limited, it will be important to prioritize highly exposed populations and those at risk of severe morbidity. Vaccines are particularly suited for creating herd immunity because their allocation can be specifically targeted to highly exposed populations, such as health-care workers or individuals with frequent contact with customers. Moreover, deaths can be prevented by first targeting highly vulnerable populations, although it is expected that vaccines may not be as efficacious in older people. Vaccines may thus have a significantly greater impact on reducing viral circulation than naturally acquired immunity, especially if it turns out that naturally acquired protective immunity requires boosts through re-infections (if needed, vaccines can be routinely boosted). Also, given that there are increasing numbers of reports of long-term complications even after mild COVID-19, vaccines are likely to provide a safer option for individuals who are not classified at-risk.

For countries in the Northern hemisphere, the coming autumn and winter seasons will be challenging with the likely intensification of viral circulation, as has recently been observed with the return of the cold season in the Southern hemisphere. At this stage, only non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as social distancing, patient isolation, face masks and hand hygiene, have proven effective in controlling the circulation of the virus and should therefore be strictly enforced. Potential antiviral drugs that reduce viral loads and thereby decrease transmission, or therapeutics that prevent complications and deaths, may become significant for epidemic control in the coming months. This is until vaccines become available, which will allow us to reach herd immunity in the safest possible way.
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 10762
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by message #2527204 »

eldanielfire wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 9:36 pm
message #2527204 wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 7:42 pm
C69 wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:55 pm
message #2527204 wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:45 pm
Varsity Way wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 3:42 pm I tried to get a test today knowing that Plymouth is the nearest test centre about 70 miles away. Can't get anything online through the government website or phoning 119. A friend in Plymouth has been offered a test in Inverness. This seems farcical.
Kids have gone back to school and every one of them consequently has a cold. People panic and get a test for a cold. People are getting themselves tested when they're told to isolate - f**king idiot british public who haven't understood a word of what's been going on for the last 10 months. And we asked them to vote on EU membership FFS.
Total bollocks no kids in my childs year have colds or are off sick. My daughtet says attendance is excellent and all the kids are being sensible..
Dozen off sick at the boys school sore throats and colds. Three off football and 1/2 dozen shy at rugby today. Maybe you're in a good area. Kids always get snotty noses going back to school and bring it home - you can't keep them home with a snotty nose, can you?

I teach and our attendances are more or less as high as ever. Only kids off are those who have to quarantine and they more or less all returned late last week.
I didn't say it was higher than normal, just that parents are having their kids tested when they just have a cold.
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 58131
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by CM11 »

There's no option if the cold comes with fever or respiratory symptoms. We had what we were certain was a cold but it came with some extra symptoms for some of the children so had no choice but to get confirmation before sending them back to school.
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 10762
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by message #2527204 »

CM11 wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:09 pm There's no option if the cold comes with fever or respiratory symptoms. We had what we were certain was a cold but it came with some extra symptoms for some of the children so had no choice but to get confirmation before sending them back to school.
OK. Point taken.
Varsity Way
Posts: 1201
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:50 pm

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Varsity Way »

CM11 wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:09 pm There's no option if the cold comes with fever or respiratory symptoms. We had what we were certain was a cold but it came with some extra symptoms for some of the children so had no choice but to get confirmation before sending them back to school.
You correctly followed the protocols. :thumbup:
User avatar
Pat the Ex Mat
Posts: 5432
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Pat the Ex Mat »

CM11 wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:09 pm There's no option if the cold comes with fever or respiratory symptoms. We had what we were certain was a cold but it came with some extra symptoms for some of the children so had no choice but to get confirmation before sending them back to school.
Exactly - all of the medical advice here is to immediately isolate and test if cold symptoms occur

What kind of idiots don't get this by now?
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 10762
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by message #2527204 »

Pat the Ex Mat wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:30 pm
CM11 wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:09 pm There's no option if the cold comes with fever or respiratory symptoms. We had what we were certain was a cold but it came with some extra symptoms for some of the children so had no choice but to get confirmation before sending them back to school.
Exactly - all of the medical advice here is to immediately isolate and test if cold symptoms occur

What kind of idiots don't get this by now?
The advice is to test if you have covid symptoms, not if you have a cold.
bimboman
Posts: 65082
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

I’m surprised people are catching cold and flu considering we are all now protected by masks.
Post Reply