Coronavirus.

[DarloRich]

Goodness me Dominic Raab is soporific. I could read my microwave instructions out with more intrest and passion.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Goodness me Dominic Raab is soporific. I could read my microwave instructions out with more intrest and passion.

I switched off the radio in the end - literally...

 

[Leo1961]

We really are very thin at the top aren't we? If the politicians who have been pushed out to stand behind lectern's over the past few weeks are anything to go by, we really have dumbed down.

And the current journalists with their predictable questions are not worthy of the title.

Whatever happened to the levels of competency we showed during the Falklands Conflict? Did they all retire without passing on their experience?

 

[bussnapperwm]

We really are very thin at the top aren't we? If the politicians who have been pushed out to stand behind lectern's over the past few weeks are anything to go by, we really have dumbed down.

And the current journalists with their predictable questions are not worthy of the title.

Whatever happened to the levels of competency we showed during the Falklands Conflict? Did they all retire without passing on their experience?

I bet Coronavirus figures would go down if Diane Abbott was in charge

 

[Mogster]

But that 5 000 - 20 000 is the modelled figure with the interventions the government have made. Without them the modelled figure was several times that - 510,000 in the Imperial collage model released 16/03. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

So why is this difference. Well number 1 our medics in the NHS have access to (and take up) Flu-shots every year. As a result you get very few medical staff having to take time off or develop serious complications from the Flu, thus the NHS can usually continue working at capacity. Combine this with the same for much of the older population and the spike in hospital admissions during the flu-season is manageable, hence 50000 being seen as a high number. So what would flu season be like without a vaccine? Doctors, nurses, paramedics and all the other critical staff in our healthcare provision having to take time off work to recover from the virus. Many many more elderly and vulnerable heading to emergency departments, the system would quickly becoem overloaded and we would see a disproportionately high rise in fatalities because of the lack of resources. That is why Covid-19 leads to the current draconian measures that we do not see for seasonal Flu and absolutely wy they are neccesary.

Well according to the long running Cochrane reviews on flu vaccination then probably not much, evidence for protection in healthy people is really zero.

https://www.cochrane.org/news/featu...ws-assessing-effectiveness-influenza-vaccines

Three Cochrane Reviews focussing on the prevention of influenza in healthy adults, healthy children, and in the elderly are long-running reviews under the same senior author team. The protocol for the oldest review was first published 20 years ago.

Really it seems there are just too many different virus’s causing Influenza Like Illnesses (ILI’s) and our immune response isn’t that great against them. Is it better than nothing? Maybe, but the question is should we be vaccinating healthy people when there’s no little hard evidence it makes any difference.

 

[AM9]

Bored now especially as I disagree with the lockdown.
We need to be tested instead

We don't actually have a 'lockdown'. Lockdown is an americanism which is when people, - and more specifically prisoners, are confined to their cells or houses by force, (which we would call house arrest):
see here: https://www.google.com/search?clien...AMA7_QXqzcAAAA&zx=1585594564684#dobs=lockdown
The English word that you are looking for is 'Quarantine':
https://www.google.com/search?clien...A7_QXqzcAAAA&zx=1585594564684#dobs=quarantine

 

[Bayum]

Antigen tests will use a nasal or oral swab to help determine if virus infection is current. Antibody tests need a pinprick of blood and will determine if the viral infection has already happened. The latter is what's been ordered to the tune of 3.5m kits.

A bit of an explanation for anyone wondering on the difference between antigen and antibody.
An antigen is something that provokes an immune response in the body, usually a protein on the pathogen. Effectively, you're checking to see if there are remnants of the virus left within either of these mucous membranes by checking for traces of these proteins OR the pathogen itself.
An antibody is something produced in response to the antigen. So by testing for specific proteins or immunoglobulins (each test will look at slightly different things) you can see whether the body has developed antibodies to the pathogen. If yes, your body has had to deal with it in some way - doesn't matter if you were a/symptomatic - and that is what the test is after.

 

[yorksrob]

Someone on Radio 2 called it a "lock-in" by accident today.

If only.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

And the problem with testing is that the tests look for "coronavirus" - and not specifically Covid-19.

Considering the fact that everybody carries different strains of many viruses (e.g. varicella zoster, herpes simplex, latent TB - and variants of coronavirus); most of which lie dormant until activated, it comes as no surprise that we would all test positive for "coronavirus"

 

[AM9]

And the problem with testing is that the tests look for "coronavirus" - and not specifically Covid-19.

Considering the fact that everybody carries different strains of many viruses (including coronavirus), it comes as no surprise that we would all test positive for "coronavirus"

That also shows the sloppy journalism that abounds these days. "Coronavirus" means nothing in the context of the current pandemic, it's much like going to a GP (not this year of course) and being told that you have a coronavirus when it is only a cold. 'COVID-19' is the WHO name for this disease or 'SARS-CoV-2' as codified by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV).
It's no wonder that the lay public get it so wrong.

 

[Bayum]

And the problem with testing is that the tests look for "coronavirus" - and not specifically Covid-19.

Considering the fact that everybody carries different strains of many viruses (e.g. varicella zoster, herpes simplex, latent TB - and variants of coronavirus); most of which lie dormant until activated, it comes as no surprise that we would all test positive for "coronavirus"

Happy to be corrected, but I thought the tests were looking for the genetic sequence that codes specifically for covid-19?

In which case the test is very specific?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Types of coronaviruses include alpha (229E/NL63), beta (OC43/HKU1), MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-Cov2 (Covid-19)

Source: National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Division of Viral Diseases

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Happy to be corrected, but I thought the tests were looking for the genetic sequence that codes specifically for covid-19?

In which case the test is very specific?

Not for the home-kit fingerprint test being rolled out by the UK Government!

To do it properly requires a throat swab and detailed analysis by a laboratory

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not for the home-kit fingerprint test being rolled out by the UK Government!

To do it properly requires a throat swab and detailed analysis by a laboratory

I think you're misunderstanding. The home kit is specifically to test for antibodies to COVID19, not other coronaviruses. The protracted testing period is so they can ensure that is all it does. A test telling us whether we'd had any coronavirus would be pointless, everyone would test positive for the reasons outlined above.

Antibody tests are mostly possible to do well as home test kits. The way they basically work, I understand, is that the test solution contains an inactivated version of part of the virus, then when you add the blood the antibodies activate and can be detected. An example is the test for coeliac disease which looks for antibodies against gluten, it can be done in 10 minutes at home and they cost about £15.

 

[Bayum]

Ah, I thought they were looking at purchasing antibody tests. Surely they must recognise that the antigen test would give high rates of false positives given there are a variety of coronaviruses like you pointed out? Would an antibody test be specific enough to check for certain proteins?

 

[Bayum]

I think you're misunderstanding. The home kit is specifically to test for antibodies to COVID19, not other coronaviruses. The protracted testing period is so they can ensure that is all it does. A test telling us whether we'd had any coronavirus would be pointless, everyone would test positive for the reasons outlined above.

Antibody tests are mostly possible to do well as home test kits. The way they basically work, I understand, is that the test solution contains an inactivated version of part of the virus, then when you add the blood the antibodies activate and can be detected. An example is the test for coeliac disease which looks for antibodies against gluten, it can be done in 10 minutes at home and they cost about £15.

I too thought they were antibody tests rather than antigen. Again, I’m happy to be corrected

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I think you're misunderstanding. The home kit is specifically to test for antibodies to COVID19, not other coronaviruses. The protracted testing period is so they can ensure that is all it does. A test telling us whether we'd had any coronavirus would be pointless, everyone would test positive for the reasons outlined above.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...sting-work-and-will-we-have-a-home-test-soon/

/Because the symptoms of covid-19 are similar to those of other diseases, testing is the only way to know for sure if someone is infected with the coronavirus. Mass testing is therefore crucial to halting its spread. In the UK, a home test will apparently go on sale very soon.

How do you test for coronavirus infections?

At present, most tests are based on looking for genetic sequences specific to the covid-19 coronavirus. If these sequences are found in a sample, it must contain the virus.

What does testing involve?

Getting a sample to test involves pushing a swab – which resembles an extra-long cotton bud – deep inside the nose or to the back of the throat. The swab is then sent off to a lab.

What about testing blood or urine?

The virus is only detected in the blood, urine or faeces of roughly half of those who test positive based on nose or throat swabs, so blood, urine and stool tests aren’t reliable. If you are coughing up sputum, testing that can provide more accurate results than a nose or throat swab, according to a handbook summarising findings in China.

Note: my emphasis



Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-will-we-have-a-home-test-soon/#ixzz6ICgQ9rer

 

[Islineclear3_1]

So, from I get from the New Scientist article is that blood tests don't work. And the UK Government want to roll out finger-prick tests:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...home-testing-to-be-made-available-within-days

Millions of 15-minute home coronavirus tests are set to be available on the high street or for Amazon delivery to people self-isolating, according to Public Health England (PHE), in a move that could restore many people’s lives to a semblance of pre-lockdown normality.

Prof Sharon Peacock, the director of the national infection service at PHE, told MPs on the science and technology committee that mass testing in the UK would be possible within days, saying evaluation of the fingerprick tests should be completed this week. The government later took a more cautious line, saying that the tests would not be available so quickly.

The UK government has bought 3.5m tests – which reveal whether someone has had the virus and is therefore thought to have some immunity – and is ordering millions more, it has said.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, from I get from the New Scientist article is that blood tests don't work. And the UK Government want to roll out finger-prick tests:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...home-testing-to-be-made-available-within-days

No, you are confusing antibody and antigen tests. The article is discussing antigen tests - these test for the presence of the virus, i.e. a current infection. The planned home test is an antibody test, which tests for the presence of antibodies against the virus in the blood, which persist for 1-2 months after an infection. The latter won't tell you if you currently have it, it will tell you if you have it *or* have had it in the last 1-2 months or so.

All antibody tests are blood tests as that is where you find antibodies.

There are two reasons for doing this. One of them is to understand the extent of the spread, i.e. how many people have had it already. The other is to identify people who have had it as it is believed they are likely (but not certain) to be immune to reinfection, which would allow those people to be considered "safe" in at-risk job roles.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Yes, the home test is indeed, an antibody test. But it is a test for coronavirus.

It is the antigen test that specifically tests for Covid-19

 

[High Dyke]

Someone on Radio 2 called it a "lock-in" by accident today.

If only.

 

[trainophile]

We really are very thin at the top aren't we? If the politicians who have been pushed out to stand behind lectern's over the past few weeks are anything to go by, we really have dumbed down.

And the current journalists with their predictable questions are not worthy of the title.

Whatever happened to the levels of competency we showed during the Falklands Conflict? Did they all retire without passing on their experience?

Why do all the journalists have to ask two (or today it has become three) questions when they get their turn? I'm surprised the bods on the podiums (podia?) can keep up, and I'm sure the viewers get confused - well I do anyway.

Edit: I see Andrew Neil agrees with me on Twitter.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, the home test is indeed, an antibody test. But it is a test for coronavirus.

It is the antigen test that specifically tests for Covid-19

No, you are wrong. The antibody test will test for antibodies to COVID-19. It would be worthless otherwise.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, the home test is indeed, an antibody test. But it is a test for coronavirus.

It is the antigen test that specifically tests for Covid-19

I don't see anything in what you have quoted that says that. "The coronavirus" in #1909 is sloppy wording but I think "the" means it refers to COVID-19 which is mentioned earlier in the sentence, otherwise it would probably just say "coronavirus" without "the".

As Bletchleyite has just posted, an antibody test that gave a positive for any coronavirus would be even more useless than an antigen test that did the same. The antigen test would be positive for anyone having any coronavirus at the time of the test but the antibody test would be positive for anyone who had had any coronavirus at any time in the past. As other types of coronavirus are really common, almost everyone would test positive.

 

[Bayum]

I don't see anything in what you have quoted that says that. "The coronavirus" in #1909 is sloppy wording but I think "the" means it refers to COVID-19 which is mentioned earlier in the sentence, otherwise it would probably just say "coronavirus" without "the".

As Bletchleyite has just posted, an antibody test that gave a positive for any coronavirus would be even more useless than an antigen test that did the same. The antigen test would be positive for anyone having any coronavirus at the time of the test but the antibody test would be positive for anyone who had had any coronavirus at any time in the past. As other types of coronavirus are really common, almost everyone would test positive.

I mean, the thought did occur to me that it would be a MASSIVE stay at home rouse for the government. ‘If you rest positive, you and your family must stay home for fourteen days!’

I don't see anything in what you have quoted that says that. "The coronavirus" in #1909 is sloppy wording but I think "the" means it refers to COVID-19 which is mentioned earlier in the sentence, otherwise it would probably just say "coronavirus" without "the".

As Bletchleyite has just posted, an antibody test that gave a positive for any coronavirus would be even more useless than an antigen test that did the same. The antigen test would be positive for anyone having any coronavirus at the time of the test but the antibody test would be positive for anyone who had had any coronavirus at any time in the past. As other types of coronavirus are really common, almost everyone would test positive.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Bored now especially as I disagree with the lockdown.
We need to be tested instead

But testing will merely show enough people are infected so... we need to separate. It is a basic law of infection - the less people you contact the less quickly the disease spreads. We need to slow the spread of this disease as it is hammering NHS resources We really don't need testing to prove that. Testing was only any good as a way of stopping the disease getting into the UK. It is now too late.

 

[edwin_m]

But testing will merely show enough people are infected so... we need to separate. It is a basic law of infection - the less people you contact the less quickly the disease spreads. We need to slow the spread of this disease as it is hammering NHS resources We really don't need testing to prove that. Testing was only any good as a way of stopping the disease getting into the UK. It is now too late.

The antibody test will be useful to tell people that they are unlikely to be infected or infectious (assuming infection does in fact convey immunity, which is likely for a while if not for ever), particularly so critical workers can return to work. Antibody tests on a random sample of the population will also give a much better idea of how many cases there are and therefore what proportion of cases require hospital treatment or are fatal. At the moment only the one serious enough to go to hospital are being confirmed.

 

[Mogster]

No, you are confusing antibody and antigen tests. The article is discussing antigen tests - these test for the presence of the virus, i.e. a current infection. The planned home test is an antibody test, which tests for the presence of antibodies against the virus in the blood, which persist for 1-2 months after an infection. The latter won't tell you if you currently have it, it will tell you if you have it *or* have had it in the last 1-2 months or so.

All antibody tests are blood tests as that is where you find antibodies.

There are two reasons for doing this. One of them is to understand the extent of the spread, i.e. how many people have had it already. The other is to identify people who have had it as it is believed they are likely (but not certain) to be immune to reinfection, which would allow those people to be considered "safe" in at-risk job roles.

The “at home” tests are called lateral flow chromatography tests, they are similar to a pregnancy test. You soak your sample onto a paper and it moves along picking up reagents that indicate the presence or otherwise of the antibody your looking for. The 2 main antibody classes are IgM and IgG, IgM appear first and their presence indicates early infection, IgG appear later tend to be long lasting and indicate immunity. The test is easy to do at home but they tend to have low sensitivity compared to lab based tests. It’ll be interesting to see what PHE and the MHRA think is acceptable sensitivity. Spain have recently returned thousands of Chinese lateral flow tests after finding out they had 30% sensitivity which is horrendously low. Basically it means if you test a panel of 100 confirmed positives the Chinese test would only find 30 of them positive.

Then there’s the question of when we’ve tested ourselves what we are supposed to do with the results?

ELISA is the gold standard for antibody screening but it’s a lab test and not something people can do at home.

PHE is also ramping up its PCR testing for viral RNA moving to 24/7 working and using the commercial Roche assay.

 

[Jozhua]

The difference in reactions is interesting. On the one hand, you have the mass panic buying of, initially pasta and loo rolls, but now just about everything. An assistant at my local supermarket said yesterday was worse than Christmas, and today was looking to be even worse, with a long queue of people waiting for the doors to open so they could get in before everything loaded on the shelves overnight vanished again. And on the other hand, you have the "bulldog" mentality, of people who will battle on regardless - the kind of people who always turn up for work regardless of how ill they are. The carriage I travelled in yesterday was full of people coughing, sneezing, sniffing and snot-snorting - the woman in the bay behind was coughing and sniffing every few seconds. No doubt they were all saying to themselves "it's only a cold, no need to self-isolate" and probably they were right, but in awhile these will be exactly the kind of people determined to keep going who will be busy transmitting the Covid-19 to everyone else.

True, unfortunately a lot of workplaces are probably being pig-headed about the whole thing. Ultimately, it's down to the government to enact policies to force businesses to let employees work from home or cease all non-essential operations for the time being.

Manchester appears to be incredibly quiet, although I get the impression London is taking things less seriously. Partly, that has to do with higher public transport modal share, but I think there is also a defiant attitude, especially among the young business people.

One thing I have noticed in particular in Manchester, is that park/country areas are quite busy, whilst the typically busy city areas are almost deserted. People on Facebook are having a go at people who live in the city centre for going shopping there, before driving (along with half of Greater Manchester), to some nature reserve or national park for their exercise.

To an extent the delay approach actually relies on some poor citizenship. Unless you think you can eradicate Covid you need most people to do it right whilst some disobedience keeps infections running through at a manageable level. Otherwise you might be delaying the peak, not flattening it.

Unfortunately, our only option if we don't want to be stuck in quarantine until a vaccine arrives, is to try and do our best to eradicate Covid-19. Bringing infection rates down to a level we can carry out contact tracing and contain subsequent outbreaks is of vital importance.

Ultimately, allowing enough people to gain immunity without overwhelming the healthcare system would take years, possibly longer than a vaccine. Plus, the virus still kills younger people without pre-existing health conditions and we are not aware what kind of permanent damage it could cause the lungs of those affected with more severe cases.

Ah, I thought they were looking at purchasing antibody tests. Surely they must recognise that the antigen test would give high rates of false positives given there are a variety of coronaviruses like you pointed out? Would an antibody test be specific enough to check for certain proteins?

If the antibodies were the same for every type of coronavirus, wouldn't we be immune already?

But testing will merely show enough people are infected so... we need to separate. It is a basic law of infection - the less people you contact the less quickly the disease spreads. We need to slow the spread of this disease as it is hammering NHS resources We really don't need testing to prove that. Testing was only any good as a way of stopping the disease getting into the UK. It is now too late.

Testing is a vital piece of the puzzle to understanding how many are infected, for correct distribution of resources/informing policy, and encouraging those infected to maintain distance from others. Without testing, how are we supposed to know whether measures are effective?

I agree more should have been done at the border. Obviously I get the government is trying to preserve freedoms to move in and out, but doing so now has everyone locked up in their homes. It is every countries responsibility to get on top of this outbreak, I think failing to keep case numbers under control is a fair enough reason for their residents to lose the right to transit to/through the UK.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Ultimately it must work, viruses have been around a heck of a lot longer than us, and have been hijacking our cells for almost as long as life has existed. And we are still here, so....

For this virus though?

I believe these are for coordinating things like food deliveries. However, they are using very strong language to describe them, things like "gold commanders". I have a feeling this may be to shut up the fairly common moan I'm seeing around the place of "we want the Army on the streets".

Gold command is a pretty standard system for dealing with any major event, especially cross-agency plans where not everyone will be familiar with the names/surnames/ranks/staff numbers of the people involved. It is used for dealing with everything from local match day to nationwide crises. It's simply a three-rank framework (Gold, Silver and Bronze) which can be adapted. The person(s) in each role depend on the circumstance. On a small-ish local football match, it might be the local Chief Superintendent in the Gold command, whilst a more significant problem would see a higher-ranking gold commander. To add to the confusion, COBR has been known to intervene at a so-called 'Platinum' level in some major incidents.