politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s cognitive condition is increasingly being question

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s cognitive condition is increasingly being questioned

In the history of live television interviews there has never been one this awkward, not ever. ? pic.twitter.com/8S6bChlaTO

Read the full story here

IanB2

First!

IanB2

He's the only one in my book who is red. So this would be good news.

Floater

Vehicle owners in Britain will be granted a six-month exemption from MoT testing. The Department for Transport said in a statement: "All cars, vans and motorcycles which usually would require an MoT test will be exempted from needing a test from 30 March.

"Vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition, and garages will remain open for essential repair work. Drivers can be prosecuted if driving unsafe vehicles."

ydoethur

FPT

FF43 said:

I agree that there is no call at the moment for a government of national unity. I think the crisis does require politicians to adapt to be challenging but constructive.

Parliament should continue to meet by Zoom, like the rest of us are doing.

If MPs had any sense (so it won't happen) they would right now be doing the following:

1) Preparing an Act to allow them to meet and vote remotely at the discretion of the Speaker in a time of national emergency;

2) Including in the act a clause to suspend the requirement for a quorum and instead saying that members from both sides and a minimum of three parties must have voted on it under those circumstances;

3) Declared a Regency with the Duke of Cambridge as regent so the elderly royals including Her Maj and Prince Charles can be safely locked down and essential business still transacted.

Act to be reviewed after one month, meeting remotely.

But it won't happen.

ydoethur

Floater said:

Vehicle owners in Britain will be granted a six-month exemption from MoT testing. The Department for Transport said in a statement: "All cars, vans and motorcycles which usually would require an MoT test will be exempted from needing a test from 30 March.

"Vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition, and garages will remain open for essential repair work. Drivers can be prosecuted if driving unsafe vehicles."

That makes things easier - and after all, people will be doing much less driving.

It would be immensely useful to know if the same applied to gas safety inspections in buy to let properties. Does anybody know?

Charles

FPT @Jonathan

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1242737876456091654?s=21

And so it has started. They can't help themselves.

To be fair this has been suggested well before the current crisis.

There is no reason why partisan politicians should be voting on recommendations of the Boundary Commission as they have a conflict.

You need to sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and think about what you're saying.

I know exactly what I am saying.

MPs vote to set the principles (no of seats, variance etc)

Boundary Commission does its work. Lots of input from various interested parties at this stage.

Final report laid before parliament.

It should be implemented automatically. Otherwise politicians with an interest can repeatedly frustrate the law. That why (I think) we ran the last general election on the 2001 constituency boundaries.

Charles

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

ydoethur

Charles said:

FPT @Jonathan

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1242737876456091654?s=21

And so it has started. They can't help themselves.

To be fair this has been suggested well before the current crisis.

There is no reason why partisan politicians should be voting on recommendations of the Boundary Commission as they have a conflict.

You need to sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and think about what you're saying.

I know exactly what I am saying.

MPs vote to set the principles (no of seats, variance etc)

Boundary Commission does its work. Lots of input from various interested parties at this stage.

Final report laid before parliament.

It should be implemented automatically. Otherwise politicians with an interest can repeatedly frustrate the law. That why (I think) we ran the last general election on the 2001 constituency boundaries.

Not quite that bad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies

But the information used was from the 2001 census, so it was nine years out of date at the time.

AlastairMeeks

https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/1242745456926642177

Endillion

Charles said:

FPT @Jonathan

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1242737876456091654?s=21

And so it has started. They can't help themselves.

To be fair this has been suggested well before the current crisis.

There is no reason why partisan politicians should be voting on recommendations of the Boundary Commission as they have a conflict.

You need to sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and think about what you're saying.

I know exactly what I am saying.

MPs vote to set the principles (no of seats, variance etc)

Boundary Commission does its work. Lots of input from various interested parties at this stage.

Final report laid before parliament.

It should be implemented automatically. Otherwise politicians with an interest can repeatedly frustrate the law. That why (I think) we ran the last general election on the 2001 constituency boundaries.

That seems fair enough. We've already agreed that MPs shouldn't vote on their own salaries; seems pretty clear they also shouldn't vote on whether to make themselves redundant.

ydoethur

eadric said:

If you think I’m prone to the occasional bout of corona-pessimism

Nobody has ever, ever, accused you of that.

In the same way nobody has ever accused Theresa May of being slightly inflexible or Boris Johnson of being a little bit dodgy.

Fysics_Teacher

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

I had assumed that the rate of replication of the Coronavirus (a word which rather depressingly now appears on my autocorrect) was relatively slow, hence the long delay between infection and symptoms. Is that wrong?

Charles

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

FPT @Jonathan

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1242737876456091654?s=21

And so it has started. They can't help themselves.

To be fair this has been suggested well before the current crisis.

There is no reason why partisan politicians should be voting on recommendations of the Boundary Commission as they have a conflict.

You need to sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and think about what you're saying.

I know exactly what I am saying.

MPs vote to set the principles (no of seats, variance etc)

Boundary Commission does its work. Lots of input from various interested parties at this stage.

Final report laid before parliament.

It should be implemented automatically. Otherwise politicians with an interest can repeatedly frustrate the law. That why (I think) we ran the last general election on the 2001 constituency boundaries.

Not quite that bad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies

But the information used was from the 2001 census, so it was nine years out of date at the time.

thanks for the clarification

Pulpstar

I've greened up (Though not cashed out) on this markets the future is very uncertain, particularly given the age of all the current runners.

Charles

Fysics_Teacher said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

I had assumed that the rate of replication of the Coronavirus (a word which rather depressingly now appears on my autocorrect) was relatively slow, hence the long delay between infection and symptoms. Is that wrong?

I don't know - suspect that people haven't done this work yet

Endillion

On topic: agreed and I have just cashed out. Medium sized profit if it's anyone near the top of the betting. Jay Inslee and Kirsten Gillibrand are now my best results.

kamski

The curve of daily new cases looks like it might be already flattening in Germany:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/

It seems a bit early to me, it could be just a blip. I'm also hearing reports that both swabs and chemicals needed for testing are in short supply (as well as the labs operating at capacity), so the number of tests might be going down, or at least stopped increasing. Without testing numbers it's harder to see what's happening.

Morris_Dancer

Biden's still my best result, but I have hedged him for the nomination so green either way (thanks Mr. B for the tip, once again).

TheScreamingEagles

It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?

IshmaelZ

Is that clip so damaging? He looks as if he feels the way I feel about Trump, and . the you-go-first silence in the conversation is awkward, sure, but it happens to everyone and I think the interviewer is bad at filling the gap, which is her job. It isn't good for Biden, sure, but not a game changer. Whoever Amy is is overegging the pudding.

Luckyguy1983

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.

TheScreamingEagles

Floater said:

Vehicle owners in Britain will be granted a six-month exemption from MoT testing. The Department for Transport said in a statement: "All cars, vans and motorcycles which usually would require an MoT test will be exempted from needing a test from 30 March.

"Vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition, and garages will remain open for essential repair work. Drivers can be prosecuted if driving unsafe vehicles."

I posted a few weeks ago that I was told this was going to happen.

Pulpstar

Fysics_Teacher said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

I had assumed that the rate of replication of the Coronavirus (a word which rather depressingly now appears on my autocorrect) was relatively slow, hence the long delay between infection and symptoms. Is that wrong?

Do longer delayed (Between infection and symptons) cases have better outcomes ?

twistedfirestopper3

327million people, and it all boils down to Trump or Biden?

Stark_Dawning

Can't say it's most awkward TV interview ever to be honest.

DecrepiterJohnL

On topic: I was contemplating the same bet this morning but am quite red on Biden. One question is the timing of Biden's withdrawal, assuming he does step down. The Betfair market is on who is nominated at the convention in July, not who will face Trump in November. It may be the Dems' men in grey suits will have an eye on the calendar to stop Biden without enabling Sanders.

rottenborough

Harris is 170 for nominee.

IshmaelZ

eadric said:

kamski said:

The curve of daily new cases looks like it might be already flattening in Germany:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/

It seems a bit early to me, it could be just a blip. I'm also hearing reports that both swabs and chemicals needed for testing are in short supply (as well as the labs operating at capacity), so the number of tests might be going down, or at least stopped increasing. Without testing numbers it's harder to see what's happening.

Can we trust the data on Germany on worldometer?

eg it still says Germany has only 23 critical cases.

it says UK has 20, so I think we just ignore the whole critical column.

Charles

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.

Viruses typically replicate in the bloodstream. The issue with the lungs is a symptom (it's ARDS, but not sure of the underlying mechanistic cause. Would assume it is part of an inflammatory cascade)

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

Floater said:

Vehicle owners in Britain will be granted a six-month exemption from MoT testing. The Department for Transport said in a statement: "All cars, vans and motorcycles which usually would require an MoT test will be exempted from needing a test from 30 March.

"Vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition, and garages will remain open for essential repair work. Drivers can be prosecuted if driving unsafe vehicles."

I posted a few weeks ago that I was told this was going to happen.

I've let my brother know. He's a mobile mechanic that operates in and around Coventry so if anyone here lives near there and needs their vehicle fixing he can do so without using up your daily trip out

RochdalePioneers

FPT

AlastairMeeks said:

I can see why Majestic wanted to stay open, given this was what the Wine Society told its members:

"Demand has been exceptionally high".

A company supplying both wine and home gym equipment right now would clean up.

Wine / beer / spirits in a squeezy bottle so that you can sip as you run. A literal killing to be made...

Luckyguy1983

eadric said:

kamski said:

The curve of daily new cases looks like it might be already flattening in Germany:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/

It seems a bit early to me, it could be just a blip. I'm also hearing reports that both swabs and chemicals needed for testing are in short supply (as well as the labs operating at capacity), so the number of tests might be going down, or at least stopped increasing. Without testing numbers it's harder to see what's happening.

Can we trust the data on Germany on worldometer?

eg it still says Germany has only 23 critical cases.

I think it says we only have 20!

Basically just as death is the only certainty in life, deaths are (sadly) the only half accurate measure we have in tracking this pandemic - and if that is manipulated, measured differently, or subject to different underlying causes, then we have no measurement at all!

Malmesbury

twistedfirestopper3 said:

327million people, and it all boils down to Trump or Biden?

This. I have said this before. I asked my Democrat relatives for a candidate who is -

1) 40-50
2) Preferably a former Governor or Senator
3) Healthy
4) Able to speak
5) Politically actually a Democrat
6) Not wholly owned by Goldman Sachs.
7) Not a re-tread

Apparently, no I can't have that...

NerysHughes

Does anyone know how on earth the Government is going to administer Furlough payments?

Barnesian

I don't think that clip shows cognitive decline in Biden at all. He's saying what lots of people are saying - Trump is not acting presidential, he's up and down like a yoyo. Then he tries to row back on his words, no doubt thinking it is too personal. All very understandable.

The interviewer causes confusion " No you go ahead" etc when he's finished his point.

No doubt Biden's enemies will try to use clips like this, possibly doctored (I'm not suggesting that one is). But many people will relate to Biden.

I'm green on him and I'm not laying any.

Alanbrooke

TheScreamingEagles said:

It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?

do the democrats really want to lose that much ?

Floater

IshmaelZ said:

eadric said:

kamski said:

The curve of daily new cases looks like it might be already flattening in Germany:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/

It seems a bit early to me, it could be just a blip. I'm also hearing reports that both swabs and chemicals needed for testing are in short supply (as well as the labs operating at capacity), so the number of tests might be going down, or at least stopped increasing. Without testing numbers it's harder to see what's happening.

Can we trust the data on Germany on worldometer?

eg it still says Germany has only 23 critical cases.

it says UK has 20, so I think we just ignore the whole critical column.

They can only report the info they have - I only rely on the totals and death columns now

Luckyguy1983

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.

Viruses typically replicate in the bloodstream. The issue with the lungs is a symptom (it's ARDS, but not sure of the underlying mechanistic cause. Would assume it is part of an inflammatory cascade)

Thanks Charles - v helpful!

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?

To select Clinton once may be regarded as a misfortune, to choose her a second time would just be fucking stupidity.

Floater

Stark_Dawning said:

Can't say it's most awkward TV interview ever to be honest.

I thought that - Diane Abbott for one could be excruciating

Pulpstar

eadric said:

kamski said:

The curve of daily new cases looks like it might be already flattening in Germany:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/

It seems a bit early to me, it could be just a blip. I'm also hearing reports that both swabs and chemicals needed for testing are in short supply (as well as the labs operating at capacity), so the number of tests might be going down, or at least stopped increasing. Without testing numbers it's harder to see what's happening.

Can we trust the data on Germany on worldometer?

eg it still says Germany has only 23 critical cases.

We're only testing very severe cases here though, are they checking more mild cases ?

RochdalePioneers

TheScreamingEagles said:

It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?

Can't they install Andrew Cuomo? He is doing a stellar job in New York State. Not just in actions but in the way he communicates. Compare him directly to Trump and he'd force the Donald into hysterical hissy fits.

Malmesbury

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.

The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.

squareroot2

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT

AlastairMeeks said:

I can see why Majestic wanted to stay open, given this was what the Wine Society told its members:

"Demand has been exceptionally high".

A company supplying both wine and home gym equipment right now would clean up.

Wine / beer / spirits in a squeezy bottle so that you can sip as you run. A literal killing to be made...

Wine society is closed to deliveries.. I found that out yesterday.. sign of the times.. Denbies deliver but want £11 to deliver

RochdalePioneers

NerysHughes said:

Does anyone know how on earth the Government is going to administer Furlough payments?

Allegedly they are going to set up a portal where businesses can apply for the money. Can I suggest that they need to do it *quickly*...

IanB2

£4000 of lays on Biden since this article went up just now.

Edit/£5000
Edit2/£6000, now 1.16

IshmaelZ

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.

Viruses typically replicate in the bloodstream. The issue with the lungs is a symptom (it's ARDS, but not sure of the underlying mechanistic cause. Would assume it is part of an inflammatory cascade)

"Respiratory viruses tend to infect and replicate in two places: In the nose and throat, where they are highly contagious, or lower in the lungs, where they spread less easily but are much more deadly."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/23/coronavirus-isnt-alive-thats-why-its-so-hard-kill/

Gallowgate

twistedfirestopper3 said:

327million people, and it all boils down to Trump or Biden?

Land of the free; home of the brave.

Alistair

TheScreamingEagles said:

It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?

Given I have cashed out I am intensely relaxed about the nominee now.

JohnLoony

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

FPT @Jonathan

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1242737876456091654?s=21

And so it has started. They can't help themselves.

To be fair this has been suggested well before the current crisis.

There is no reason why partisan politicians should be voting on recommendations of the Boundary Commission as they have a conflict.

You need to sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and think about what you're saying.

I know exactly what I am saying.

MPs vote to set the principles (no of seats, variance etc)

Boundary Commission does its work. Lots of input from various interested parties at this stage.

Final report laid before parliament.

It should be implemented automatically. Otherwise politicians with an interest can repeatedly frustrate the law. That why (I think) we ran the last general election on the 2001 constituency boundaries.

Not quite that bad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies

But the information used was from the 2001 census, so it was nine years out of date at the time.

They don't use numbers from the census to determine the electorates of parliamentary constituencies, they use the electorates at the time of review. Using census figures would include children and some adults who aren't eligible to vote.

ydoethur

Gallowgate said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

327million people, and it all boils down to Trump or Biden?

Land of the free; home of the brave.

Well, apparently not if those two cowardly authoritarians are the best on offer.

nichomar

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Floater said:

Vehicle owners in Britain will be granted a six-month exemption from MoT testing. The Department for Transport said in a statement: "All cars, vans and motorcycles which usually would require an MoT test will be exempted from needing a test from 30 March.

"Vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition, and garages will remain open for essential repair work. Drivers can be prosecuted if driving unsafe vehicles."

I posted a few weeks ago that I was told this was going to happen.

I've let my brother know. He's a mobile mechanic that operates in and around Coventry so if anyone here lives near there and needs their vehicle fixing he can do so without using up your daily trip out

Do you also have some chinese back packs for sale?😀

JohnLoony

That interview only looks awkward because of the transmission delay between the two people speaking to each other.

Endillion

Malmesbury said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

327million people, and it all boils down to Trump or Biden?

This. I have said this before. I asked my Democrat relatives for a candidate who is -

1) 40-50
2) Preferably a former Governor or Senator
3) Healthy
4) Able to speak
5) Politically actually a Democrat
6) Not wholly owned by Goldman Sachs.
7) Not a re-tread

Apparently, no I can't have that...

Expand the age range a bit, and there's loads of candidates. The killer is:

8) From a swing state

Which reduces the options to Amy Klobuchar.

Malmesbury

Endillion said:

Malmesbury said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

327million people, and it all boils down to Trump or Biden?

This. I have said this before. I asked my Democrat relatives for a candidate who is -

1) 40-50
2) Preferably a former Governor or Senator
3) Healthy
4) Able to speak
5) Politically actually a Democrat
6) Not wholly owned by Goldman Sachs.
7) Not a re-tread

Apparently, no I can't have that...

Expand the age range a bit, and there's loads of candidates. The killer is:

8) From a swing state

Which reduces the options to Amy Klobuchar.

The swing state thing is massively over-rated.

IanB2

NerysHughes said:

Does anyone know how on earth the Government is going to administer Furlough payments?

They will swing the crack team of administrators they have working on Universal Credit onto the job?

Luckyguy1983

Malmesbury said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.

The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.

That would seem to indicate that excepting cases (appreciate this is most) where the virus is multiplying in the bloodstream, there may still be a mechanism whereby heavy exposure (or 'viral load) can influence not just the likelihood, but the severity of a viral infection.

Barnesian

Malmesbury said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.

The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.

It might be starting with 32 rather than 1 (a cough in your face). What is the rate of replication? Does it double every minute, every 5 minues, every hour? How long does it take for your immune system to kick in and build up?

Let's be honest. None of us know what we are talking about. We are grasping for analogies and explanations (eg why do medics get hit so much more?)

Foxy

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.

Viruses typically replicate in the bloodstream. The issue with the lungs is a symptom (it's ARDS, but not sure of the underlying mechanistic cause. Would assume it is part of an inflammatory cascade)

The viral entry site seems to be the ACE2 receptor, which is found predominately in the lungs, but also gut and heart.

I don't think red cells express ACE2 receptors so how can the bloodstream be the main source of viral replication?

In addition red cells do not have nuclei, and are not equipped to produce RNA replication or viral proteins.

Viruses may well be distributed by bloodstream, but I cannot see them reproducing there.

ydoethur

JohnLoony said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

FPT @Jonathan

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1242737876456091654?s=21

And so it has started. They can't help themselves.

To be fair this has been suggested well before the current crisis.

There is no reason why partisan politicians should be voting on recommendations of the Boundary Commission as they have a conflict.

You need to sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and think about what you're saying.

I know exactly what I am saying.

MPs vote to set the principles (no of seats, variance etc)

Boundary Commission does its work. Lots of input from various interested parties at this stage.

Final report laid before parliament.

It should be implemented automatically. Otherwise politicians with an interest can repeatedly frustrate the law. That why (I think) we ran the last general election on the 2001 constituency boundaries.

Not quite that bad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies

But the information used was from the 2001 census, so it was nine years out of date at the time.

They don't use numbers from the census to determine the electorates of parliamentary constituencies, they use the electorates at the time of review. Using census figures would include children and some adults who aren't eligible to vote.

I thought that using the electoral roll was brought in under Cameron? Certainly when I was working on the 2011 census I was told census data was used for electoral purposes. As I recall, it was a controversial change for precisely the reasons you state, e.g. those in constituencies with large numbers of migrants would be adversely impacted.

I know the Wikipedia article I cited says something different but then, Wikipedia also says Richard III was the rightful king of England.

Hyufd would probably know.

IshmaelZ

Luckyguy1983 said:

Malmesbury said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.

The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.

That would seem to indicate that excepting cases (appreciate this is most) where the virus is multiplying in the bloodstream, there may still be a mechanism whereby heavy exposure (or 'viral load) can influence not just the likelihood, but the severity of a viral infection.

This virus is replicating in the nose and lungs, not in the bloodstream, according to the Washington Post - which seems to be intuitively right, since you might as well breed in the place you live and work.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/23/coronavirus-isnt-alive-thats-why-its-so-hard-kill/

nunu2

If I'm claiming universal credit because I've lost my job, will I have to go in for a face to face interview, or is everything being done online now? Thanx.

felix

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?

Can't they install Andrew Cuomo? He is doing a stellar job in New York State. Not just in actions but in the way he communicates. Compare him directly to Trump and he'd force the Donald into hysterical hissy fits.

This is your problem - if Trump is your benchmark then Basil Brush would be a shoe-in!

OllyT

squareroot2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT

AlastairMeeks said:

I can see why Majestic wanted to stay open, given this was what the Wine Society told its members:

"Demand has been exceptionally high".

A company supplying both wine and home gym equipment right now would clean up.

Wine / beer / spirits in a squeezy bottle so that you can sip as you run. A literal killing to be made...

Wine society is closed to deliveries.. I found that out yesterday.. sign of the times.. Denbies deliver but want £11 to deliver

I had that message too, followed by another asking me if I wanted to cancel my order. Not sure why deliveries need to be cancelled but it's up to them I suppose. Have got a delivery from elsewhere now. The thought of 4 months locked in without one doesn't bear thinking about!!

Barnesian

IanB2 said:

£4000 of lays on Biden since this article went up just now.

Edit/£5000
Edit2/£6000, now 1.16

Bet on Biden for nominee for a 15% tax free return in four months. Not exactly free money but excellent value.

MarqueeMark

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?

To select Clinton once may be regarded as a misfortune, to choose her a second time would just be fucking stupidity.

But if you were looking at a body that does fucking stupidity REALLY well, its the Dems....

Endillion

Barnesian said:

Malmesbury said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.

The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.

It might be starting with 32 rather than 1 (a cough in your face). What is the rate of replication? Does it double every minute, every 5 minues, every hour? How long does it take for your immune system to kick in and build up?

Let's be honest. None of us know what we are talking about. We are grasping for analogies and explanations (eg why do medics get hit so much more?)

I'm not an expert, but I think doubling might be an unhelpful term. It implies you're thinking about cell division via mitosis, which is not how I understand viruses to replicate. My memories of high school biology are that they instead turn cells into virus factories which then spit out vast numbers of copies of the virus. So exponential increase with parameter >> 2, in which case the difference between 32 and 1 at the beginning is negligible regardless of replication speed.

MarqueeMark

Is anyone's bins still being collected? I know the public tips are closed.

Foxy

Malmesbury said:

Endillion said:

Malmesbury said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

327million people, and it all boils down to Trump or Biden?

This. I have said this before. I asked my Democrat relatives for a candidate who is -

1) 40-50
2) Preferably a former Governor or Senator
3) Healthy
4) Able to speak
5) Politically actually a Democrat
6) Not wholly owned by Goldman Sachs.
7) Not a re-tread

Apparently, no I can't have that...

Expand the age range a bit, and there's loads of candidates. The killer is:

8) From a swing state

Which reduces the options to Amy Klobuchar.

The swing state thing is massively over-rated.

Looking at the USA map of cases, while there are some obvious hot spots, it does look a fairly even spread across blue, red and swing states when allowing for population density.

https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1242700623704817664?s=19

ydoethur

MarqueeMark said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?

To select Clinton once may be regarded as a misfortune, to choose her a second time would just be fucking stupidity.

But if you were looking at a body that does fucking stupidity REALLY well, its the Dems....

TBF, in this country Labour chose Corbyn twice.

kinabalu

Joe Biden is a real concern. Especially because as I feared, and predicted, Trump is getting a boost from the crisis. It's not hurting him, it's helping. "War Leader" and all that crap. Before this kicked off he was IMO almost certainly going to lose. Now, I am not so sure. I can see him winning now. I just hate typing that but it has to be faced. As for Joe, if he is not up to the campaign the Dems need to swap him out. Who for? HRC? Cuomo? I suppose Bernie has the best claim. God knows. But anyway, bottom line, pre-corona I was not worried about the Maximum Moron inflicting a 2nd term upon us but now I am very worried indeed. And if that is an outcome of the virus it will be amongst its very worst. I value Trump's removal as being worth X premature deaths where the only uncertainty about X is whether it is a big number or a VERY big number.

Fysics_Teacher

IshmaelZ said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Malmesbury said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.

The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.

That would seem to indicate that excepting cases (appreciate this is most) where the virus is multiplying in the bloodstream, there may still be a mechanism whereby heavy exposure (or 'viral load) can influence not just the likelihood, but the severity of a viral infection.

This virus is replicating in the nose and lungs, not in the bloodstream, according to the Washington Post - which seems to be intuitively right, since you might as well breed in the place you live and work.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/23/coronavirus-isnt-alive-thats-why-its-so-hard-kill/

Did you mean to say breed? I think breeding in your workplace is only done in some highly specialised professions. Like my father’s.

nunu2

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/1242745456926642177

Ok, it looks like Democrats got a pretty good deal.

ydoethur

MarqueeMark said:

Is anyone's bins still being collected? I know the public tips are closed.

Bin lorries are still working in Cannock Chase as of this morning. When they stop we will have a big problem, especially in the major urban areas.

dr_spyn

Biden may be struggling, but how would he cope with the return of Covid19 if he became President.

Trump like other leaders is under huge pressure, and some of them might not cope mentally or physically with the stress of dealing with Covid19. The Dutch Health Minister stepped down last week.

felix

Barnesian

Foxy said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.

Viruses typically replicate in the bloodstream. The issue with the lungs is a symptom (it's ARDS, but not sure of the underlying mechanistic cause. Would assume it is part of an inflammatory cascade)

The viral entry site seems to be the ACE2 receptor, which is found predominately in the lungs, but also gut and heart.

I don't think red cells express ACE2 receptors so how can the bloodstream be the main source of viral replication?

In addition red cells do not have nuclei, and are not equipped to produce RNA replication or viral proteins.

Viruses may well be distributed by bloodstream, but I cannot see them reproducing there.

Thanks. Someone who does know what he is talking about!

TGOHF666

https://twitter.com/xr_east/status/1242527618823577602?s=21

FrancisUrquhart

If people have seen the Oxford paper that was in the FT and wondered what the hell all the maths meant. A decent explanation of how these models generally work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrp40ck3WpI

twistedfirestopper3

MarqueeMark said:

Is anyone's bins still being collected? I know the public tips are closed.

Our general waste went yesterday, but the garden waste on Monday was cancelled. I guess they have to carry on due to the public health issues that will arise if it's left to pile up.

ABZ

Foxy said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.

Viruses typically replicate in the bloodstream. The issue with the lungs is a symptom (it's ARDS, but not sure of the underlying mechanistic cause. Would assume it is part of an inflammatory cascade)

The viral entry site seems to be the ACE2 receptor, which is found predominately in the lungs, but also gut and heart.

I don't think red cells express ACE2 receptors so how can the bloodstream be the main source of viral replication?

In addition red cells do not have nuclei, and are not equipped to produce RNA replication or viral proteins.

Viruses may well be distributed by bloodstream, but I cannot see them reproducing there.

ACE2 is also highly expressed in nasal epithelial cells (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.06122.pdf) - an observation that is being followed up at present.

Foxy

Endillion said:

Barnesian said:

Malmesbury said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.

The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.

It might be starting with 32 rather than 1 (a cough in your face). What is the rate of replication? Does it double every minute, every 5 minues, every hour? How long does it take for your immune system to kick in and build up?

Let's be honest. None of us know what we are talking about. We are grasping for analogies and explanations (eg why do medics get hit so much more?)

I'm not an expert, but I think doubling might be an unhelpful term. It implies you're thinking about cell division via mitosis, which is not how I understand viruses to replicate. My memories of high school biology are that they instead turn cells into virus factories which then spit out vast numbers of copies of the virus. So exponential increase with parameter >> 2, in which case the difference between 32 and 1 at the beginning is negligible regardless of replication speed.

Yes, that is correct.

It all depends on the race between viral replication and host immune response.

The fatal thing though is the ARDS, triggered by the virus rather than directly induced by replication. There are many parts to the molecular biology of this that we need to understand.

Fysics_Teacher

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/xr_east/status/1242527618823577602?s=21

That will make them popular. Are we sure that it isn’t a spoof?

Gallowgate

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/xr_east/status/1242527618823577602?s=21

This is so unhelpful to the cause. What on earth are they thinking?

MarqueeMark

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?

Can't they install Andrew Cuomo? He is doing a stellar job in New York State. Not just in actions but in the way he communicates. Compare him directly to Trump and he'd force the Donald into hysterical hissy fits.

There's a great argument for co-opting Cuomo. Anyone who has shown some gumption for dealing with Covid-19 just HAS to be a better candidate for President than Trump.

Although, anyone with a receipt for some hand sanitizer is a better candidate....

twistedfirestopper3

The .gov website says that MOTs are only suspended for 3 months, maybe it's not been updated yet.

squareroot2

deleted

DecrepiterJohnL

Government or business confusion. My dentist is closed although gov.uk list dental surgeries as an exception. Similarly, HMG wants online retail to flourish during this crisis but several delivery services are being withdrawn. Restaurants were urged to switch to takeaway but instead many existing takeaway chains, including McDonalds and KFC, have closed.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/further-businesses-and-premises-to-close/further-businesses-and-premises-to-close-guidance

RochdalePioneers

MarqueeMark said:

Is anyone's bins still being collected? I know the public tips are closed.

Ours just have been

IshmaelZ

Fysics_Teacher said:

IshmaelZ said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Malmesbury said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.

The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.

That would seem to indicate that excepting cases (appreciate this is most) where the virus is multiplying in the bloodstream, there may still be a mechanism whereby heavy exposure (or 'viral load) can influence not just the likelihood, but the severity of a viral infection.

This virus is replicating in the nose and lungs, not in the bloodstream, according to the Washington Post - which seems to be intuitively right, since you might as well breed in the place you live and work.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/23/coronavirus-isnt-alive-thats-why-its-so-hard-kill/

Did you mean to say breed? I think breeding in your workplace is only done in some highly specialised professions. Like my father’s.

I am assuming viruses work from home, setting us an example.

Not going to hazard a guess about your father.

ydoethur

One for @malcolmg

On this day in 1306, Robert the Bruce was crowned King of Scots.

Fysics_Teacher

IshmaelZ said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

IshmaelZ said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Malmesbury said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.

The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.

That would seem to indicate that excepting cases (appreciate this is most) where the virus is multiplying in the bloodstream, there may still be a mechanism whereby heavy exposure (or 'viral load) can influence not just the likelihood, but the severity of a viral infection.

This virus is replicating in the nose and lungs, not in the bloodstream, according to the Washington Post - which seems to be intuitively right, since you might as well breed in the place you live and work.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/23/coronavirus-isnt-alive-thats-why-its-so-hard-kill/

Did you mean to say breed? I think breeding in your workplace is only done in some highly specialised professions. Like my father’s.

I am assuming viruses work from home, setting us an example.

Not going to hazard a guess about your father.

Dairy farmer

Endillion

Malmesbury said:

Endillion said:

Malmesbury said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

327million people, and it all boils down to Trump or Biden?

This. I have said this before. I asked my Democrat relatives for a candidate who is -

1) 40-50
2) Preferably a former Governor or Senator
3) Healthy
4) Able to speak
5) Politically actually a Democrat
6) Not wholly owned by Goldman Sachs.
7) Not a re-tread

Apparently, no I can't have that...

Expand the age range a bit, and there's loads of candidates. The killer is:

8) From a swing state

Which reduces the options to Amy Klobuchar.

The swing state thing is massively over-rated.

In terms of actual importance, or perceived importance? It did seem to harm Kamala Harris to be painted as a West Coast liberal who couldn't beat Trump because she didn't understand the Rust Belt. It's also undeniably true that her campaign was about as uninspiring as it's possible to be, but she was undoubtedly a decent candidate on paper.

Alistair

felix said:

Saying that his thing that is actually happening under a Conservative government would happen under Corbyn is not the killer joke most righties think it is.

IshmaelZ

Fysics_Teacher said:

IshmaelZ said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

IshmaelZ said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Malmesbury said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.

Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.

Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.

The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.

That would seem to indicate that excepting cases (appreciate this is most) where the virus is multiplying in the bloodstream, there may still be a mechanism whereby heavy exposure (or 'viral load) can influence not just the likelihood, but the severity of a viral infection.

This virus is replicating in the nose and lungs, not in the bloodstream, according to the Washington Post - which seems to be intuitively right, since you might as well breed in the place you live and work.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/23/coronavirus-isnt-alive-thats-why-its-so-hard-kill/

Did you mean to say breed? I think breeding in your workplace is only done in some highly specialised professions. Like my father’s.

I am assuming viruses work from home, setting us an example.

Not going to hazard a guess about your father.

Dairy farmer

Ah!

ydoethur

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/xr_east/status/1242527618823577602?s=21

Would somebody carrying the virus please find every member of Extinction Rebellion and breathe very hard in their faces?

That might engage what passes for their brains before opening their outsize gobs in future.

twistedfirestopper3

B&Q have closed while they decide what they are going to sell, Screwfix only doing click and collect for essentials only. That makes sense, as B&Q especially would have been a magnet for bored isolators.
I think B&Q will open up with just their Tradepoint entrances operating.

Endillion

ydoethur said:

JohnLoony said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

FPT @Jonathan

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1242737876456091654?s=21

And so it has started. They can't help themselves.

To be fair this has been suggested well before the current crisis.

There is no reason why partisan politicians should be voting on recommendations of the Boundary Commission as they have a conflict.

You need to sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and think about what you're saying.

I know exactly what I am saying.

MPs vote to set the principles (no of seats, variance etc)

Boundary Commission does its work. Lots of input from various interested parties at this stage.

Final report laid before parliament.

It should be implemented automatically. Otherwise politicians with an interest can repeatedly frustrate the law. That why (I think) we ran the last general election on the 2001 constituency boundaries.

Not quite that bad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies

But the information used was from the 2001 census, so it was nine years out of date at the time.

They don't use numbers from the census to determine the electorates of parliamentary constituencies, they use the electorates at the time of review. Using census figures would include children and some adults who aren't eligible to vote.

I thought that using the electoral roll was brought in under Cameron? Certainly when I was working on the 2011 census I was told census data was used for electoral purposes. As I recall, it was a controversial change for precisely the reasons you state, e.g. those in constituencies with large numbers of migrants would be adversely impacted.

I know the Wikipedia article I cited says something different but then, Wikipedia also says Richard III was the rightful king of England.

Hyufd would probably know.

Polls indicate 64% approval levels for Richard III when compared to a King Edward potato so yes true that Richard III is currently the rightful king of England.

MarqueeMark

JohnLoony said:

That interview only looks awkward because of the transmission delay between the two people speaking to each other.

Nice to see you back posting, John.

The voice of sanity.....

FrancisUrquhart

What we wouldn't give for somebody like Bill Gates in charge of the US at the moment.