Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s VP pick – the case for 40/1 Iraq war veteran Tammy

SystemSystem Posts: 8,258
edited May 16 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s VP pick – the case for 40/1 Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth

This weekend the junior senator for Illinois, Tammy Duckworth, is due to have a meeting with presumptive nominee, Joe Biden, about the possibility of her being on the ticket in November.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • MattWMattW Posts: 3,430
    edited May 16
    1st. Again.

    FPT: on the Welsh Government and Groups of 2. The original Corona Regs stated "gatherings of not more than two may not..." so allowed them.

    I have no idea whether it has changed, because the system that should doc. the law in Wales is as confused as Mark Drakeford himself.

    Which makes it a bothersome sort of day for some.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 3,430
    And 2nd.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 3,430
    edited May 16
    And 3rd.

    Just like the Jamaican Olympic 100m team in London 2012.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 2,226
    Vets is the USA equivalent of the NHS.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 4,230
    NHS England Data -

    Trend since peak

    image

    Series

    image
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,303
    6th and FPT
    JohnLilburne said:

    » show previous quotes
    Surely it means Nicola is safe in post until someone else named after a fish comes along

    Salmond II coming to a parliament near you soon
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,889
    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.
    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.

    I assume the models and interpretation of testing data are taking this possibility into account?
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 3,272
    181 English hospital deaths but 468 UK overall. The active epidemic really does seem concentrated in care homes now
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 4,230
    malcolmg said:

    6th and FPT
    JohnLilburne said:

    » show previous quotes
    Surely it means Nicola is safe in post until someone else named after a fish comes along

    Salmond II coming to a parliament near you soon

    Private Pike as the next Scottish FM?

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,889
    On topic: I think Elizabeth Warren is great value at 8.6.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/05/elizabeth-warren-biden-vice-president/611497/

    As well as the many political arguments in her favour, there is an emotional tie.

    "Warren told me about a call she received from Biden the morning after her brother died [in April]. Their conversation was “one person who’d lost loved ones trying to console another person who just lost her beloved brother,” she said.

    Connections formed in grief tend to stay with Biden. This one has certainly stayed with Warren."
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 13,729
    21. People coming to it late desperately try to work out what's happened.

    I go through that on here sometimes.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 19,837
    edited May 16
    IshmaelZ said:

    Vets is the USA equivalent of the NHS.

    I guess so but weirdly the miltary religious fanatics of the GOP seem fine with danger-avoiding Donald who trashed McCain and families of dead vets. For the umpteenth time, it's a funny ole place, America.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909

    181 English hospital deaths but 468 UK overall. The active epidemic really does seem concentrated in care homes now
    Its even more complicated....

  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,430
    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909
    Despite Dortmund vs Schalke supposed to be the big derby, I just can't get excited by it.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,197
    Tammy Duckworth is possible. There is something odd about her Google video search results in that almost all lead back to her Senate home page and not directly to any videos.
  • isamisam Posts: 32,009
    edited May 16
    :D






  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 4,230
    On Topic: She has a backstory. As far as I can tell, no negatives that have come up.

    She is fairly mainstream in the Democrat party - think Biden (who is on the right of the Dems*) would want to reach towards the New Left?

    *That means he is to the right of the current UK government.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909
    Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has said he'll ask parliament for a further - and final - extension to the state of emergency declared over coronavirus.

    Sánchez wants it to be extended for a month, instead of the customary two weeks. The current extension is due to expire in a week's time.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 13,729

    Despite Dortmund vs Schalke supposed to be the big derby, I just can't get excited by it.

    In theory it is Germany's answer to Man Utd v Liverpool, but Schalke are a poor team at the moment.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909
    isam said:

    :D



    Is this how we will have to watch sport in these socially distant times?
  • isamisam Posts: 32,009

    isam said:

    :D



    Is this how we will have to watch sport in these socially distant times?
    I'd let all the other managers who have gone the season unbeaten sit as close as they like to him!
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 3,272

    181 English hospital deaths but 468 UK overall. The active epidemic really does seem concentrated in care homes now
    Its even more complicated....
    208 in English care homes then

  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 3,272

    181 English hospital deaths but 468 UK overall. The active epidemic really does seem concentrated in care homes now
    Its even more complicated....
    208 in English care homes then

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,889
    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,452

    isam said:

    :D



    Is this how we will have to watch sport in these socially distant times?
    He still won't have seen the incident through the crowd....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909

    isam said:

    :D



    Is this how we will have to watch sport in these socially distant times?
    He still won't have seen the incident through the crowd....
    Wins the internet today.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,197

    Tammy Duckworth is possible. There is something odd about her Google video search results in that almost all lead back to her Senate home page and not directly to any videos.

    One question before relying on Duckworth's military status is whether she will be swiftboated, as John Kerry was but with added twitterbots.
  • ukpaulukpaul Posts: 584
    FPT -
    Barnesian said:

    ukpaul said:

    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    So that could well be never then, or at least 2 years. The education of especially disadvantaged kids will be effected for life.
    Dying affects people for life too. This whole schools business is a bit of a mess. If the schools can reopen, why did we need to cancel A-levels? Why wear masks in shops or on buses but not in more crowded classrooms? And so on. The government has issued pages and pages of guidance but a lot amounts to "work something out".
    Masks, well you know my opinion on this. But Nordic countries have their teachers wear them, but not the kids. I believe a total of 2 kids with no underlying health condition have died, and there isn't much evidence that kids are proving to be some massive transport vector (in the same say going to a nightclub is).

    I
    Is an 18 year old doing A levels less of a risk than one in a nightclub? Probably, but not by much.

    I think children do catch it, and there is some risk of onward transmission, but life is about balancing and mitigating risks. Strong ground rules. No playground games, lots of washing, etc.

    Temperature taken at the schoolgate, with staggered start times. Swab all children on their first day back, and entire classes if a case occurs.
    Well I hope the older kids that do go back aren't crushed together snogging all day....

    I think the idea of only having a just few year groups back before summer is that they can run small classes, so even the 15 / 17 year olds can remain sufficiently socially distance.

    Also, kids clearly do catch it, but the risk to healthy ones is so so small. I would have thought more 17-18 year olds end up hospitalized with drink / drugs over a normal summer, than will be admitted due to coronavirus from sitting socially distance in a classroom.

    The bigger risk is with the teachers.
    Restrict teachers to those aged under 45 and not living with a vulnerable person. Low risk. It would reduce the availability of teachers. I don't know by what %.
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/830283/SWFC_Tables_2018v2.xlsx

    Teaching staff under 45. Primary 75%, Secondary 68%
    Teaching staff under 50, Primary 86%, Secondary 82%
    Teaching staff under 55, Primary 95%, Secondary 92%

    This is state schools, adding independents may take a percentage point or two off each.

    I never realised I was in such a small group. I think I’m the oldest there, as of next year.

    I imagine that premises and catering staff skew a bit older, just from observation.
    Thanks. So my suggestion wouldn't reduce the availability of teachers by that much. But there might be a problem with premises and catering staff?
    Maybe more difficult in some subjects. PE skews younger usually, for obvious reasons. I heard some suggestion of older staff being used for a push into virtual learning but that might just be idle chatter about the idea of a National Tutoring Service.

    We have a chance to rethink things here in various areas and the tendency to want the same as before is going to hamper ways forward. The exam system, the approach to disadvantaged students, the use of technology etc., all of these areas are ready to be made anew and better. Break it down, build it up.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,452
    136,486 tests.

    BJO along to tell us that is really shite in 5, 4, 3.....
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 187
    Barnesian said:

    On topic: I think Elizabeth Warren is great value at 8.6.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/05/elizabeth-warren-biden-vice-president/611497/

    As well as the many political arguments in her favour, there is an emotional tie.

    "Warren told me about a call she received from Biden the morning after her brother died [in April]. Their conversation was “one person who’d lost loved ones trying to console another person who just lost her beloved brother,” she said.

    Connections formed in grief tend to stay with Biden. This one has certainly stayed with Warren."

    Agree that she could be value and she performed very well in the later debates. I guess the question is what would she bring to the ticket. Obviously nothing extra with her home state, the Governor is a Republican (I read the rules but can't make heads or tails whether it would only be until November or after) and she probably wouldn't bring much in the way of Bernie voters given the antipathy. I think she could be a surprise Secretary of the Treasury in a Biden administration though
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,572

    isam said:

    :D



    Is this how we will have to watch sport in these socially distant times?
    No it always looked like that at Highbury in the good old days when they wouldn't let you in unless you wore a tie.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 15,656

    IshmaelZ said:

    Vets is the USA equivalent of the NHS.

    I guess so but weirdly the miltary religious fanatics of the GOP seem fine with danger-avoiding Donald who trashed McCain and families of dead vets. For the umpteenth time, it's a funny ole place, America.
    John Kerry got hammered for his war service too, though this is one of the most powerful speeches that you will hear.


  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,430
    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    Neither of those is an example of the virus having stopped spreading in the absence of extreme counter-measures.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 3,272
    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    Countries seem to be moving ahead quite strongly with reopening borders and lifting lockdowns, even if they are planning them ahead and instituting stringent safety measures. I am wondering if they have access to data that predicts some sort of fizzle out effect. You are right that London has dropped off dramatically, and it seems likely that lockdown has been less effective there due to a higher population density, people sharing parks, travelling by public transport etc
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,857
    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly

    https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

    It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,430
    edited May 16

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    Countries seem to be moving ahead quite strongly with reopening borders and lifting lockdowns, even if they are planning them ahead and instituting stringent safety measures. I am wondering if they have access to data that predicts some sort of fizzle out effect. You are right that London has dropped off dramatically, and it seems likely that lockdown has been less effective there due to a higher population density, people sharing parks, travelling by public transport etc
    So there are secret data indicating a "fizzle out effect" and - despite the desperation of all governments to get back to normal - there's a conspiracy not to tell anyone?
  • isamisam Posts: 32,009
    edited May 16
    algarkirk said:

    isam said:

    :D



    Is this how we will have to watch sport in these socially distant times?
    No it always looked like that at Highbury in the good old days when they wouldn't let you in unless you wore a tie.
    Flicking through some old photo's yesterday I found one of my Dads mate who owned the winner of the 1988 Greyhound derby with his dog, which was called "Hit The Lid". He was an Arsenal season ticket holder in the East Stand, and took me to my first game at Highbury in his Roller around 1981. Very plush.

    We drew 2-2 with Middlesbrough
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909
    Scott_xP said:

    twitter.com/Thomashornall/status/1261635330760982529

    I bet family gatherings of the Corbyn's is a right old hoot...
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,430

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly

    https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

    It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
    He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.

    But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 3,272
    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    Countries seem to be moving ahead quite strongly with reopening borders and lifting lockdowns, even if they are planning them ahead and instituting stringent safety measures. I am wondering if they have access to data that predicts some sort of fizzle out effect. You are right that London has dropped off dramatically, and it seems likely that lockdown has been less effective there due to a higher population density, people sharing parks, travelling by public transport etc
    So there are secret data indicating a "fizzle out effect" and - despite the desperation of all governments to get back to normal - there's a conspiracy not to tell anyone?
    No I just suspect that governments have access to research that hasn't yet entered the public domain. Who knows what Porton Down is up to? It may just be the economic imperative driving it, though, rather than confidence that it is on the way out.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,197
    Everyone is in favour of *safely* reopening the schools but Adonis begs the question.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,889
    MrEd said:

    Barnesian said:

    On topic: I think Elizabeth Warren is great value at 8.6.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/05/elizabeth-warren-biden-vice-president/611497/

    As well as the many political arguments in her favour, there is an emotional tie.

    "Warren told me about a call she received from Biden the morning after her brother died [in April]. Their conversation was “one person who’d lost loved ones trying to console another person who just lost her beloved brother,” she said.

    Connections formed in grief tend to stay with Biden. This one has certainly stayed with Warren."

    Agree that she could be value and she performed very well in the later debates. I guess the question is what would she bring to the ticket. Obviously nothing extra with her home state, the Governor is a Republican (I read the rules but can't make heads or tails whether it would only be until November or after) and she probably wouldn't bring much in the way of Bernie voters given the antipathy. I think she could be a surprise Secretary of the Treasury in a Biden administration though
    What she'd bring to the ticket - complementing Biden:

    1. She has lots of well thought out plans including for Covid-19 and is articulate in explaining them (in contrast to both presidential candidates).
    2. She is bursting with energy and commitment bringing fizz and money to the campaign. (Contrast that with Kamala Harris the favourite)
    3. She is to the left of Biden and can attract many Bernie supporters.
    4. Obama rates her (read the article) and Biden listens to Obama.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,766
    edited May 16



    Countries seem to be moving ahead quite strongly with reopening borders and lifting lockdowns, even if they are planning them ahead and instituting stringent safety measures. I am wondering if they have access to data that predicts some sort of fizzle out effect.

    Even without any special fizzle effect, 6 weeks of lockdown really clamps down on the virus with straightforward exponential decay. For example, average of a few models I track shows Germany at just 2k daily infections, and the UK at 12k (and of course only a fraction of those will have a nasty case, maybe a third to half won't even have symptoms).

    Guess it depends where the numbers go now - we don't seem to have much room for error.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 3,272

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly

    https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

    It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
    Interesting that one of the effects of social distancing could be to allow the virus to spread but at a low viral load, meaning that people get it less severely
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,430

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    Countries seem to be moving ahead quite strongly with reopening borders and lifting lockdowns, even if they are planning them ahead and instituting stringent safety measures. I am wondering if they have access to data that predicts some sort of fizzle out effect. You are right that London has dropped off dramatically, and it seems likely that lockdown has been less effective there due to a higher population density, people sharing parks, travelling by public transport etc
    So there are secret data indicating a "fizzle out effect" and - despite the desperation of all governments to get back to normal - there's a conspiracy not to tell anyone?
    No I just suspect that governments have access to research that hasn't yet entered the public domain. Who knows what Porton Down is up to? It may just be the economic imperative driving it, though, rather than confidence that it is on the way out.
    We know exactly what Porton Down is up to. They're doing the antibody testing as part of the ONS antigen/antibody survey, the antigen results of which are already being published.

  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 3,544

    Scott_xP said:

    twitter.com/Thomashornall/status/1261635330760982529

    I bet family gatherings of the Corbyn's is a right old hoot...
    Both brothers come across as totally humourless
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,889
    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly

    https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

    It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
    He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.

    But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
    It could be because substantially all have been infected or are immune.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,430
    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly

    https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

    It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
    He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.

    But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
    It could be because substantially all have been infected or are immune.
    It's an infection fatality rate, so it would require 100% of the population to have been infected. Not even measles is infectious enough to achieve that!

    This is just irrational nonsense.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,430
    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly

    https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

    It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
    He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.

    But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
    It could be because substantially all have been infected or are immune.
    You almost seem to be trying to execute a pincer movement of mutually exclusive nonsense.

    On the one hand, you're telling us a large percentage of the population may be immune. On the other, you're telling us 100% of the population of New York City may have been infected!

  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 358

    Everyone is in favour of *safely* reopening the schools but Adonis begs the question.
    People keep saying re-open schools, but they've never been closed, my niece is a teacher and she is there working with the key worker's kids and some of those classed as vulnerable.

    I do wonder if this goes on too long that the fireman's the postman's and the shopworker's kids will all be at Oxford and Cambridge whilst those belonging to the stockbroker, the lawyer and the business executive will all be on the scrapheap.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,857
    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly

    https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

    It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
    He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.

    But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
    I doubt that he refers to a particular strain of the virus which reportedly has 10s if not 100s of mutations by now. Also if you listen, he says that 0.25% is distinctly possible but his central estimate is nearer 0.4%.

    0.4% is little more justification for putting me under house arrest than 0.25%. People who are terrified of it are still free to stay at home and not visit friends or relatives.

    But it would be good if the government would ask someone like Spiegelhalter to advise them on risk comparison and management. At the moment, they appear not much more knowledgeable than Mrs Jones next door, aged 48, who thinks that she may well die if she goes down the shops.

    The NHS already is supposed to be managed this way, by NICE costing the risks and benefits of different treatments. This was suddenly discarded in a blind panic.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,424
    It looks like she would be a good candidate in 2024 but does she help with African American turnout? On the other hand should you bet against a junior Senator from Illinois?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,889
    edited May 16
    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly

    https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

    It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
    He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.

    But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
    It could be because substantially all have been infected or are immune.
    You almost seem to be trying to execute a pincer movement of mutually exclusive nonsense.

    On the one hand, you're telling us a large percentage of the population may be immune. On the other, you're telling us 100% of the population of New York City may have been infected!

    I said infected or immune in the sense that they can cope with light viral loads. 100% of New Yorkers may have been exposed to the virus. 0.25% of them died.

    EDIT: It obviously depends what you mean by "fatality rate". You seem quite passionate and defensive about this and push back vigourously on any questioning in spite of the uncertainty and unknowns.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 15,656
    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.

    I assume the models and interpretation of testing data are taking this possibility into account?
    Not really.

    The Roche Antibody test is finding detectable antibodies in nearly everyone proven to have it.

    Until we have population antibody tests with such a reliable test we really cannot know.

  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,605
    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    I have the absolutely dreadful gut feeling that this business of asymptomatic infections is going to fall right between two stools.

    Not high enough to generate the "iceberg effect" that gets us towards herd immunity faster and slams the brakes on new infections.

    But not so low to prevent there being chains of asymptomatic transmission which bugger up "play-to-win whack-a-mole" strategies based on contact tracing. (A different context since there the vast majority of infections are asymptomatic, but this is one of the reasons polio has proven to be a tough nut to crack. Plenty of places where the virus is still being detected in human sewage despite no recorded cases for years.)

    I hope to be wrong and this isn't on any more of a scientific basis than the mere observation of both high and low estimates of asymptomatic infections still being circulated by their proponents.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 5,533
    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly

    https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

    It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
    He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.

    But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
    Maybe because the rate will be considerably higher in a densely-populated area with a highly-transient population like New York City compared to the overall rate.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 3,272
    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly

    https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

    It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
    He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.

    But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
    It could be because substantially all have been infected or are immune.
    It's an infection fatality rate, so it would require 100% of the population to have been infected. Not even measles is infectious enough to achieve that!

    This is just irrational nonsense.
    New York City will have a much higher transient population due to commuting. In fact that might be one of the fa
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    Countries seem to be moving ahead quite strongly with reopening borders and lifting lockdowns, even if they are planning them ahead and instituting stringent safety measures. I am wondering if they have access to data that predicts some sort of fizzle out effect. You are right that London has dropped off dramatically, and it seems likely that lockdown has been less effective there due to a higher population density, people sharing parks, travelling by public transport etc
    So there are secret data indicating a "fizzle out effect" and - despite the desperation of all governments to get back to normal - there's a conspiracy not to tell anyone?
    No I just suspect that governments have access to research that hasn't yet entered the public domain. Who knows what Porton Down is up to? It may just be the economic imperative driving it, though, rather than confidence that it is on the way out.
    We know exactly what Porton Down is up to. They're doing the antibody testing as part of the ONS antigen/antibody survey, the antigen results of which are already being published.

    We don't know what else they're up to. I have never seen the advice and research that is informing Whitty & Co. I can't believe governments aren't talking to *everyone* who has knowledge of the subject. I'm not saying there's some sort of conspiracy happening but I still think governments will be ahead of the curve on cutting edge, probably very tentative, research
  • ukpaulukpaul Posts: 584
    DeClare said:

    Everyone is in favour of *safely* reopening the schools but Adonis begs the question.
    People keep saying re-open schools, but they've never been closed, my niece is a teacher and she is there working with the key worker's kids and some of those classed as vulnerable.

    I do wonder if this goes on too long that the fireman's the postman's and the shopworker's kids will all be at Oxford and Cambridge whilst those belonging to the stockbroker, the lawyer and the business executive will all be on the scrapheap.
    Regarding the issues that are behind this, which I referred to on the previous thread. Schools want to be treated the same as other venues where people congregate. If the rule is weaker in schools then schools will not return. The government deliberately singled out schools as needing weaker protection, yet they have produced no evidence that this is science based. If they do, and if schools are treated equally, they will likely return in a greater way before September. If they aren’t, they won’t. This is not radical, it is not anything that reactionaries in the press are claiming. It is a public health issue, as backed up by the British Medical Association.

    That is all.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,889
    EPG said:

    It looks like she would be a good candidate in 2024 but does she help with African American turnout? On the other hand should you bet against a junior Senator from Illinois?

    She might not need to help with African American turnout. Biden is well placed there. Would Kamal Harris, the favourite, help with African Amerian turnout? Is it simply colour?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 32,969
    Scott_xP said:
    I do not want to be personal but why do you seem to delight in bad news

    Are you so poisoned by Brexit you want this country to fail to satisfy your despair

    It is tragic if so
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,430
    Andy_JS said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly

    https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

    It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
    He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.

    But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
    Maybe because the rate will be considerably higher in a densely-populated area with a highly-transient population like New York City compared to the overall rate.
    What rate?
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,605
    FPT

    There is a huge difference to what the two models think R was pre-lockdown.

    Be interesting to know if Cambridge model is wrong on R, how that affects their predictions on how many people have had it.
    For real fun and games, Imperial have another version of that graph (for the whole UK). Which looks completely different again and starts off at a far higher R!

    https://mrc-ide.github.io/covid19estimates/#/details/United_Kingdom

    image
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 1,342

    Scott_xP said:
    I do not want to be personal but why do you seem to delight in bad news

    Are you so poisoned by Brexit you want this country to fail to satisfy your despair

    It is tragic if so
    I don't think it's personal - it's just a subscription to a shitposting service that someone signed up to a long time ago but has no idea how to cancel.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 32,966
    edited May 16
    I reckon the more the public see of the troop of lightweights that Johnson has packed his cabinet with at these press events, the more unpopular his government will become.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 617
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    Countries seem to be moving ahead quite strongly with reopening borders and lifting lockdowns, even if they are planning them ahead and instituting stringent safety measures. I am wondering if they have access to data that predicts some sort of fizzle out effect. You are right that London has dropped off dramatically, and it seems likely that lockdown has been less effective there due to a higher population density, people sharing parks, travelling by public transport etc
    So there are secret data indicating a "fizzle out effect" and - despite the desperation of all governments to get back to normal - there's a conspiracy not to tell anyone?
    No I just suspect that governments have access to research that hasn't yet entered the public domain. Who knows what Porton Down is up to? It may just be the economic imperative driving it, though, rather than confidence that it is on the way out.
    We know exactly what Porton Down is up to. They're doing the antibody testing as part of the ONS antigen/antibody survey, the antigen results of which are already being published.

    Indeed, under the Confidence Building Measures of the Biological Weapons Convention, we do know what the MOD side of Porton Down is working on. CBM A Part 2 deals with the programme, and an update has already been submitted this year.

    https://bwc-ecbm.unog.ch/confidence-building-measure-part-2/uk-mod-biological-defence-research-and-development-programme-0
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,430
    edited May 16
    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly

    https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

    It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
    He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.

    But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
    It could be because substantially all have been infected or are immune.
    You almost seem to be trying to execute a pincer movement of mutually exclusive nonsense.

    On the one hand, you're telling us a large percentage of the population may be immune. On the other, you're telling us 100% of the population of New York City may have been infected!

    I said infected or immune in the sense that they can cope with light viral loads. 100% of New Yorkers may have been exposed to the virus. 0.25% of them died.

    EDIT: It obviously depends what you mean by "fatality rate". You seem quite passionate and defensive about this and push back vigourously on any questioning in spite of the uncertainty and unknowns.
    If you read the article we're discussing, you'll see that the 0.24-0.26% is based on a project in German based on testing (from memory, a combination of antigen and antibody testing). That's how the German professor is defining fatality rate - an infection fatality rate, based on how many people have tested positive.

    To suggest that 100% of the population of New York City have been infected in this sense is completely untenable.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 53,926

    I reckon the more the public see of the troop of lightweights that Johnson has packed his cabinet with at these press events, the more unpopular his government will become.

    That's what people always say about governments and opposition, but it doesn't seem to make that much difference. Events, and all that.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 2,759

    NHS England Data -

    Trend since peak

    image

    Series

    image

    That last graphic is really nice, although inclding every date on the x-axis and labelling the day for every curve just distracts from the overall message.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 617
    kle4 said:

    I reckon the more the public see of the troop of lightweights that Johnson has packed his cabinet with at these press events, the more unpopular his government will become.

    That's what people always say about governments and opposition, but it doesn't seem to make that much difference. Events, and all that.
    And tribes and all that ...
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 32,969

    I reckon the more the public see of the troop of lightweights that Johnson has packed his cabinet with at these press events, the more unpopular his government will become.

    To be honest the progress through reducing lockdown and success or otherwise are most likely the factors for HMG government rather than 'lightweights' in the cabinet, and to be honest Patel and Williamson are dreadful
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 32,966
    edited May 16

    FPT

    There is a huge difference to what the two models think R was pre-lockdown.

    Be interesting to know if Cambridge model is wrong on R, how that affects their predictions on how many people have had it.
    For real fun and games, Imperial have another version of that graph (for the whole UK). Which looks completely different again and starts off at a far higher R!

    https://mrc-ide.github.io/covid19estimates/#/details/United_Kingdom

    image
    The other graph on that webpage of their predictions shown in blue against reported actual infections in brown is, erm, lets just say interesting.

    You have to squint to actually see the brown, dwarfed as it is by a blue wave of 100,000s of predicted casualties.

    image
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,833

    I reckon the more the public see of the troop of lightweights that Johnson has packed his cabinet with at these press events, the more unpopular his government will become.

    It really is low quality- Williamson, Patel, Sharma, Shapps, Jendrick... the Tories have much more quality wasted in their back benches.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 3,272
    Chris said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly

    https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

    It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
    He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.

    But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
    Maybe because the rate will be considerably higher in a densely-populated area with a highly-transient population like New York City compared to the overall rate.
    What rate?
    The IFR could be higher if you live in a city. More likely to be BAME, more likely to get a higher viral load, poorer health, effects of pollution,
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,430
    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly

    https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

    It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
    He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.

    But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
    It could be because substantially all have been infected or are immune.
    You almost seem to be trying to execute a pincer movement of mutually exclusive nonsense.

    On the one hand, you're telling us a large percentage of the population may be immune. On the other, you're telling us 100% of the population of New York City may have been infected!

    I said infected or immune in the sense that they can cope with light viral loads. 100% of New Yorkers may have been exposed to the virus. 0.25% of them died.

    EDIT: It obviously depends what you mean by "fatality rate". You seem quite passionate and defensive about this and push back vigourously on any questioning in spite of the uncertainty and unknowns.
    If you read the article we're discussing, you'll see that the 0.24-0.26% is based on a project in German based on testing (from memory, a combination of antigen and antibody testing). That's how the German professor is defining fatality rate - an infection fatality rate, based on how many people have tested positive.

    To suggest that 100% of the population of New York City have been infected in this sense is completely untenable.
    To be fair, the article quoting him was published 11 days ago, so the contradiction between his claims and the NYC data wouldn't have been quite so blatant then. Still pretty blatant, though.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 617

    FPT

    There is a huge difference to what the two models think R was pre-lockdown.

    Be interesting to know if Cambridge model is wrong on R, how that affects their predictions on how many people have had it.
    For real fun and games, Imperial have another version of that graph (for the whole UK). Which looks completely different again and starts off at a far higher R!

    https://mrc-ide.github.io/covid19estimates/#/details/United_Kingdom

    image
    Both Cambridge and Imperial models show a small spike after then initial impact of lockdown. What was that? Was that Easter?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,430

    Chris said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly

    https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

    It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
    He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.

    But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
    Maybe because the rate will be considerably higher in a densely-populated area with a highly-transient population like New York City compared to the overall rate.
    What rate?
    The IFR could be higher if you live in a city. More likely to be BAME, more likely to get a higher viral load, poorer health, effects of pollution,
    No matter how much special pleading you invoke, this estimate of 0.24-0.26% is simply incredible.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 46,465
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    Countries seem to be moving ahead quite strongly with reopening borders and lifting lockdowns, even if they are planning them ahead and instituting stringent safety measures. I am wondering if they have access to data that predicts some sort of fizzle out effect. You are right that London has dropped off dramatically, and it seems likely that lockdown has been less effective there due to a higher population density, people sharing parks, travelling by public transport etc
    So there are secret data indicating a "fizzle out effect" and - despite the desperation of all governments to get back to normal - there's a conspiracy not to tell anyone?
    No I just suspect that governments have access to research that hasn't yet entered the public domain. Who knows what Porton Down is up to? It may just be the economic imperative driving it, though, rather than confidence that it is on the way out.
    We know exactly what Porton Down is up to. They're doing the antibody testing as part of the ONS antigen/antibody survey, the antigen results of which are already being published.

    If anything it's the economic data that's likely to drive them to push for a faster reopening, rather than some sort of "fizzle out".. which I agree is for the birds.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 32,966
    Barnesian said:

    EPG said:

    It looks like she would be a good candidate in 2024 but does she help with African American turnout? On the other hand should you bet against a junior Senator from Illinois?

    She might not need to help with African American turnout. Biden is well placed there. Would Kamal Harris, the favourite, help with African Amerian turnout? Is it simply colour?
    He needs to flip white rural voters from Trump in sufficient numbers to turn the states that just tipped Trump.

    Hopefully, Biden will take Bill Clinton's advice on reaching out there rather than HRC's team of data jockeys who didn't even have her visit Wisconsin once.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 32,969
    Williamson has been exposed in these conferences as well as Patel and both are out of their depth
  • RobDRobD Posts: 46,465
    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly

    https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

    It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
    He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.

    But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
    It could be because substantially all have been infected or are immune.
    That's been completely ruled out by the antibody tests there. I think it was around 20%.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 11,028

    Williamson has been exposed in these conferences as well as Patel and both are out of their depth

    Have Priti's performances not improved since number-gate?
  • ukpaulukpaul Posts: 584

    Williamson has been exposed in these conferences as well as Patel and both are out of their depth

    All he had on education was the same thing, just said more slowly. Treat schools equally, what is the problem with that?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 617
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    Chris said:

    Barnesian said:

    FPT OT sorry but I'm interested in TimT's response.

    TimT said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Very interesting thread (and linked paper) on immunity to SARS CoV-2



    Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.

    Possible live vaccine too.
    Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
    The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.

    The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).

    The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.

    The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
    That's really informative. Thank you.

    Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?

    If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.

    They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
    It "fizzles out"?

    Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?

    The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
    Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.

    Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.

    I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.

    A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly

    https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

    It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
    He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.

    But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
    Maybe because the rate will be considerably higher in a densely-populated area with a highly-transient population like New York City compared to the overall rate.
    What rate?
    The IFR could be higher if you live in a city. More likely to be BAME, more likely to get a higher viral load, poorer health, effects of pollution,
    No matter how much special pleading you invoke, this estimate of 0.24-0.26% is simply incredible.
    If you just look at Germany, ignore care home data, and over 65 data, maybe? :D
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,312
    edited May 16
    0.28% of the Bronx has been killed by the virus. The IFR simply must be higher than this.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 32,969

    Williamson has been exposed in these conferences as well as Patel and both are out of their depth

    Have Priti's performances not improved since number-gate?
    Not as far as I can detect
  • eadriceadric Posts: 3,331
    From a 2017 Guardian review of Laura Spinner's Pale Rider, a history of the Spanish flu:


    "Spinney’s important book does not attempt to offer light reading. No less than four pandemics are predicted in the 21st century. At least one will take the form of flu. Vaccination is not cheap, because the flu virus is constantly mutating. Annual vaccines currently offer the best protection. Britain does still possess a National Health Service. "

    "The enduring message of Spinney’s magisterial work is to underline just how crucial that remarkable service is to the future security of an unusually privileged nation. Let’s hope the author’s book is read with care by Theresa May."

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jun/04/pale-rider-laura-spinney-spanish-flu-review-absorbing-study
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 32,640
    The downside of a candidate in hiding is that Trump can run against whatever he chooses.

  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,001
    Pulpstar said:

    0.28% of the Bronx has been killed by the virus. The IFR simply must be higher than this.

    Is that WITH the virus or because of it. In an area of widespread infection ,people who die of other causes will also have covid-19
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,428
    Patel’s thanks to those non Brits working in the NHS during the pandemic is to up their yearly fees for healthcare . And to foreign social care workers the message is your’re not wanted !
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,605
    ukpaul said:

    DeClare said:

    Everyone is in favour of *safely* reopening the schools but Adonis begs the question.
    People keep saying re-open schools, but they've never been closed, my niece is a teacher and she is there working with the key worker's kids and some of those classed as vulnerable.

    I do wonder if this goes on too long that the fireman's the postman's and the shopworker's kids will all be at Oxford and Cambridge whilst those belonging to the stockbroker, the lawyer and the business executive will all be on the scrapheap.
    Regarding the issues that are behind this, which I referred to on the previous thread. Schools want to be treated the same as other venues where people congregate. If the rule is weaker in schools then schools will not return. The government deliberately singled out schools as needing weaker protection, yet they have produced no evidence that this is science based. If they do, and if schools are treated equally, they will likely return in a greater way before September. If they aren’t, they won’t. This is not radical, it is not anything that reactionaries in the press are claiming. It is a public health issue, as backed up by the British Medical Association.

    That is all.
    "Schools want to be treated the same as other venues where people congregate."

    I think this is a sticking point that eventually is going to have to get bulldozed through. Different venues will end up getting treated differently not because of differences in their risks, but differences in the benefits of reopening them (or more bluntly, the costs of them being closed).

    On a purely scientific basis, it might be identified that the school system and entertainment venues (as a purely hypothetical example) are similarly unsafe in terms of contributing comparably to transmissions. But it isn't "illogical", as some people claim, to keep entertainment venues closed while trying to more of the school system up and running again (with some extra social distancing measures, compulsory hand-washing, adapted timetable, more thorough cleaning rota etc) because the damage done to society by a (largely) closed school system exceeds the damage done by by a closed entertainment sector.

    Every little bit of restarting society and the economy makes an additional contribution to raising R, which is a bugger. It's pretty similar to the classical knapsack problem" ("Given a set of items, each with a weight and a value, determine the number of each item to include in a collection so that the total weight is less than or equal to a given limit and the total value is as large as possible"). One thing I've seen people moan a lot about is "how come it's now okay to have estate agent viewings and to move house, but I can't invite family around, isn't that completely inconsistent?" But with only a few thousand people likely to be moving around, compared to millions of family reunions, the "weight" (contribution to R) is minimal and the "value" of getting the property market somewhat unstuck is deemed sufficient high (we do want people to be able to move for work, especially key workers, and moves to enable family caring solutions outside care homes may also be desirable).

    You can try to reopen things in a way that reduces their "weight" while only reducing their social value as little as possible, but that only works up to an extent. Face-to-face teaching is something sufficiently valuable that it's an obvious priority to go back in the knapsack and even with a lot of thought going into preventative measures it's going to be a heavy one.

    Protection for teachers, particularly teachers in higher-risk groups, is a valid issue and something unions are right to flag up.

    (A complication of the "knacksack" model of restarting society is I don't think that the effect on R of reopening both X and Y is just the sum of the effects of X and Y - by changing the social mixing matrix in two ways you end up creating new transmission routes. But I don't think the analogy is a bad one overall.)
  • TimTTimT Posts: 617
    eadric said:

    From a 2017 Guardian review of Laura Spinner's Pale Rider, a history of the Spanish flu:


    "Spinney’s important book does not attempt to offer light reading. No less than four pandemics are predicted in the 21st century. At least one will take the form of flu. Vaccination is not cheap, because the flu virus is constantly mutating. Annual vaccines currently offer the best protection. Britain does still possess a National Health Service. "

    "The enduring message of Spinney’s magisterial work is to underline just how crucial that remarkable service is to the future security of an unusually privileged nation. Let’s hope the author’s book is read with care by Theresa May."

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jun/04/pale-rider-laura-spinney-spanish-flu-review-absorbing-study

    Flu vaccine uptake in the UK is high, but not sufficiently higher than other countries to conclude that it is all due to the blessed church of the Holy NHS

    https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/adult-flu-vaccination-coverage
Sign In or Register to comment.