Report from the shopping front line in North Essex - Car parks mainly empty - Iceland only 6 people - well spaced out - staff member at door ensuring social distancing and plenty of stock - including eggs.
Great news - people need to settle down and wait it out.
That interview is not helped by the small delay caused by the video conferencing software, several times the interviewer and interviewee start spaking and then stop at the same time.
Kill All Sparrows! Had unforeseen consequences. It was reaction to a genuine issue, not wanting anyone to starve.
Shut the Economy! A reaction to protect the NHS, under 20k first wave covid deaths not spike of 500 thousand. But what are the unforeseen consequences?
The obvious one is further wave of panic buying making first wave look like vicars tea party, as people realise with manufacturing stopped, stocks going down, they won’t see a toilet role or tin of beans for many months to come.
Another is what you did want to keep going has to stop due to lack of resource or ability to repair. Do we rely on resource supply lines important to power generation, water purification? Oil refineries?
Will refuse start piling up, not a good sight in pandemic?
Any others you can think of?
Relatedly, here’s some optimism from Germany (Holland is reporting the same slowing)
If we end up with numbers like a bad flu outbreak, there will be the mother of all rows between those saying We shouldn’t have shut the economy for a flu, and those saying It’s because we shut the economy that it feels like a flu
And then we will all wait for that second wave in the winter.
A bad flu outbreak is around 50,000 extra deaths. Do you think we will reach that?
You seem to be conflating two things. Not all excess winter deaths will be flu related. Most flu deaths will probably also be excess winter deaths, but the same is not true in reverse.
Strategy is to reduce multiple SKUs where its a choice of pack sizes (i.e. 500m, 1 pint, 1l, 2l, 4l etc) then reduce adjacent SKUs (do the fewer people who buy 1% milk actually need that or will they buy semi-skimmed). Longer runs of fewer SKUs means less downtime for changeovers & cleandowns so more production.
Every factory will have a maximum capacity based on optimal make plans which often gets whittled away by customer orders. I've worked in a business where orders would increase massively in hot weather and we would tell the retailers which SKUs would be switched off to prioritise the higher volume ones. They're used to working this way.
Yep. My primary client base struggles with manufacturing at times - they need GMP facilities, but are usually short runs produced on a campaign basis, which the big CMOs hate
Following on from my post about reduced choice it will be fascinating to see the long term impact on some brands. A lot of brand owners spend £lots pushing the image and equity of their brand so that you pay more for it vs competitors. What we have clearly seen in recent weeks is people switching away from their regular product to alternatives based on whats available.
When consumers discover that a lot of brand USPs only really exist in the Marketing Director's ego...
How the likes of Nurofen and Beechams get away away with charging 4 quid for a pack of painkillers has always amazed me.
Ferguson says that, under the policies that were in force earlier, the NHS would still have been overwhelmed - even with the extra critical beds available.
Now, in the light of the new measures, he says he thinks in some areas intensive care units will get very close to capacity. But over, across the nation as a whole, he says he is reasonably confident that the NHS will have the resources to copy.
Lets hope he is right.
If he is, we as a nation will have been very lucky, and will have been given the all mother of wake up calls.
Nah they won't. What will happen is that the thickies amongst us, who struggle to understand counterfactuals, will claim that it was all overblown nonsense. They will cite spurious death figures for seasonal flu and will forget that we have had the biggest peace time intervention to minimise deaths, as much as practically possible.
I have seen it done here repeatedly over the last few days whilst I've been trying to recover from this dreadful virus and it is infuriating to read.
Simpletons like Hitchens plant brain worms into society knowing full well that if they were actually in a position to do anything, they would never have the luxury to take the position they espouse.
Ferguson says that, under the policies that were in force earlier, the NHS would still have been overwhelmed - even with the extra critical beds available.
Now, in the light of the new measures, he says he thinks in some areas intensive care units will get very close to capacity. But over, across the nation as a whole, he says he is reasonably confident that the NHS will have the resources to copy.
Lets hope he is right.
If he is, we as a nation will have been very lucky, and will have been given the all mother of wake up calls.
Nah they won't. What will happen is that the thickies amongst us, who struggle to understand counterfactuals, will claim that it was all overblown nonsense. They will cite spurious death figures for seasonal flu and will forget that we have had the biggest peace time intervention to minimise deaths, as much as practically possible.
I have seen it done here repeatedly over the last few days whilst I've been trying to recover from this dreadful virus and it is infuriating to read.
Simpletons like Hitchens plant brain worms into society knowing full well that if they were actually in a position to do anything, they would never have the luxury to take the position they espouse.
It's morally repugnant.
In more important matters, how are you? Are you and your wife recovering?
Those struggling with getting skimmed milk, even UHT milk, you can purchase milk powder in bulk from a number of online stores.
You don't actually need to ingest cow mucus.
Those filthy meat eaters are nabbing the stocks of non dairy alternatives as well. I know a few people who mock me, but when the cow juice shelves were empty stocked up on alternatives. Horrible bastards!
At conferences, back in the dim and distant, I was known as an opportunistic vegetarian, because, if there were two buffets I always went to the veggie one, since the queue was always shorter.
The new vegan meat substitutes often taste better, hence the popularity of vegan sausage rolls and the like. This is probably because the taste has been designed, rather than settling for whatever God made congealed grey meat taste of. At least, that was the verdict in our staff canteen.
Ferguson says that, under the policies that were in force earlier, the NHS would still have been overwhelmed - even with the extra critical beds available.
Now, in the light of the new measures, he says he thinks in some areas intensive care units will get very close to capacity. But over, across the nation as a whole, he says he is reasonably confident that the NHS will have the resources to copy.
Lets hope he is right.
If he is, we as a nation will have been very lucky, and will have been given the all mother of wake up calls.
Nah they won't. What will happen is that the thickies amongst us, who struggle to understand counterfactuals, will claim that it was all overblown nonsense. They will cite spurious death figures for seasonal flu and will forget that we have had the biggest peace time intervention to minimise deaths, as much as practically possible.
I have seen it done here repeatedly over the last few days whilst I've been trying to recover from this dreadful virus and it is infuriating to read.
Simpletons like Hitchens plant brain worms into society knowing full well that if they were actually in a position to do anything, they would never have the luxury to take the position they espouse.
Ferguson says that, under the policies that were in force earlier, the NHS would still have been overwhelmed - even with the extra critical beds available.
Now, in the light of the new measures, he says he thinks in some areas intensive care units will get very close to capacity. But over, across the nation as a whole, he says he is reasonably confident that the NHS will have the resources to copy.
Lets hope he is right.
If he is, we as a nation will have been very lucky, and will have been given the all mother of wake up calls.
Nah they won't. What will happen is that the thickies amongst us, who struggle to understand counterfactuals, will claim that it was all overblown nonsense. They will cite spurious death figures for seasonal flu and will forget that we have had the biggest peace time intervention to minimise deaths, as much as practically possible.
I have seen it done here repeatedly over the last few days whilst I've been trying to recover from this dreadful virus and it is infuriating to read.
Simpletons like Hitchens plant brain worms into society knowing full well that if they were actually in a position to do anything, they would never have the luxury to take the position they espouse.
It's morally repugnant.
In more important matters, how are you? Are you and your wife recovering?
My thoughts, too, when I saw Mr W post. Glad you've come through.
Asked in the science committee hearing if he expected coronavirus to return in the winter, Prof Neil Ferguson said that the measures now in place should lead to the epidemic starting to decline instead of growing.
But he said he thought the current social isolation measures were not sustainable for the rest of the year. As they were relaxed, there would be some resurgence, he said.
Those struggling with getting skimmed milk, even UHT milk, you can purchase milk powder in bulk from a number of online stores.
You don't actually need to ingest cow mucus.
Those filthy meat eaters are nabbing the stocks of non dairy alternatives as well. I know a few people who mock me, but when the cow juice shelves were empty stocked up on alternatives. Horrible bastards!
At conferences, back in the dim and distant, I was known as an opportunistic vegetarian, because, if there were two buffets I always went to the veggie one, since the queue was always shorter.
The new vegan meat substitutes often taste better, hence the popularity of vegan sausage rolls and the like. This is probably because the taste has been designed, rather than settling for whatever God made congealed grey meat taste of. At least, that was the verdict in our staff canteen.
Of course the people we should feel the most sorry for are the self employed who have spent 3 years convincing HMRC they only earn £12,000 and now want the Government to reimburse what the £40,000 they actually earned!!
Kill All Sparrows! Had unforeseen consequences. It was reaction to a genuine issue, not wanting anyone to starve.
Shut the Economy! A reaction to protect the NHS, under 20k first wave covid deaths not spike of 500 thousand. But what are the unforeseen consequences?
The obvious one is further wave of panic buying making first wave look like vicars tea party, as people realise with manufacturing stopped, stocks going down, they won’t see a toilet role or tin of beans for many months to come.
Another is what you did want to keep going has to stop due to lack of resource or ability to repair. Do we rely on resource supply lines important to power generation, water purification? Oil refineries?
Will refuse start piling up, not a good sight in pandemic?
Any others you can think of?
Relatedly, here’s some optimism from Germany (Holland is reporting the same slowing)
If we end up with numbers like a bad flu outbreak, there will be the mother of all rows between those saying We shouldn’t have shut the economy for a flu, and those saying It’s because we shut the economy that it feels like a flu
And then we will all wait for that second wave in the winter.
A bad flu outbreak is around 50,000 extra deaths. Do you think we will reach that?
You seem to be conflating two things. Not all excess winter deaths will be flu related. Most flu deaths will probably also be excess winter deaths, but the same is not true in reverse.
I am not conflating two things. If you read the report thoroughly it puts the excess winter deaths down to flu.
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 ?
The critical case numbers are, and have always been obviously wrong for several countries, including Germany. Anyone quoting that 23 number is not engaging their brain. You could read a local newspaper, for example the Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger reported yesterday 11 people in intensive care just in Cologne, and 3 deaths in total. It's still small numbers, but suggests 100s in intensive care nationally. BTW it also has a report from a testing lab in Cologne where they are doing 4000 tests a day, supposedly the biggest in Germany. A few weeks ago I read there were 148 labs in Germany doing Covid-19 tests.
Anyway why doesn't eadric ask if we can trust the worldometer data for the UK given that it is currently showing 20 serious critical for the UK, which is also obviously nonsense.
The deaths and confirmed cases seem accurate for Germany, they are updated more often than the RKI numbers.
My post wasn’t antagonistic, merely a question: is worldometer entirely reliable when it has some obvious errors (including the critical number for UK)
And the number of critical care cases is really important, just as important as the death rate. Because it is the ICU patients that will collapse health systems, they are the real menace of covid 19.
The official RKI data (deaths and confirmed cases) for Germany is available here https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/478220a4c454480e823b17327b2bf1d4 I believe the infections and deaths on worldometer are correct, they are always a bit higher than the RKI figures because they are more up-to-date.
How come the Prince of Wales met the criteria for having a test? Is being Royal on the list?
Key worker?
I'd say he's never done a days work in his life.....
In the Royal Navy, messing about on boats plus thousands and thousands of engagements with the public since.
Don't be a ****.
That certainly told me. We're going to have to agree to disagree. If he didn't like it, he could always have fecked off to Canada like his kid to enjoy his millions.
Following on from my post about reduced choice it will be fascinating to see the long term impact on some brands. A lot of brand owners spend £lots pushing the image and equity of their brand so that you pay more for it vs competitors. What we have clearly seen in recent weeks is people switching away from their regular product to alternatives based on whats available.
When consumers discover that a lot of brand USPs only really exist in the Marketing Director's ego...
How the likes of Nurofen and Beechams get away away with charging 4 quid for a pack of painkillers has always amazed me.
Perhaps but I think my employer (who will soon make me redundant) is banking on a "flight to quality" once this is over, which may be good for the premium brands. (And more local production.)
Of course the people we should feel the most sorry for are the self employed who have spent 3 years convincing HMRC they only earn £12,000 and now want the Government to reimburse what the £40,000 they actually earned!!
I am recovering thank you. But my anecdata suggests that the initial classification system used by those Chinese researchers of 80% being 'mild' might be letting the word mild do a lot of heavy lifting.
I've had a lot of communicable illness over the past few years, with having small children. This is like no other I have experienced. Having your breath taken away over a matter of hours is scary.
We are getting better though. Thank you all for your best wishes.
How come the Prince of Wales met the criteria for having a test? Is being Royal on the list?
Key worker?
I'd say he's never done a days work in his life.....
In the Royal Navy, messing about on boats plus thousands and thousands of engagements with the public since.
Don't be a ****.
That certainly told me. We're going to have to agree to disagree. If he didn't like it, he could always have fecked off to Canada like his kid to enjoy his millions.
I don't think he wants or needs sympathy, just that it is a job. You may think Islington Council's Diversity Director, or the BBC's Head of Disinformation, or the heir to the throne are not jobs involving work.
I am recovering thank you. But my anecdata suggests that the initial classification system used by those Chinese researchers of 80% being 'mild' might be letting the word mild do a lot of heavy lifting.
I've had a lot of communicable illness over the past few years, with having small children. This is like no other I have experienced. Having your breath taken away over a matter of hours is scary.
We are getting better though. Thank you all for your best wishes.
I don't believe the much touted 80% mild figure was from Chinese researchers, I believe it comes from an American researcher, who was on MSNBC last week saying he heavily regrets using that term. He was using it basically mean to mild enough that you aren't in need of treatment, but was clear that within that 80% it was a range from nothing to the worst flu you have ever had including pneumonia.
Spain is still less than two weeks past its lockdown tho, isn’t it? So we shouldn’t expect an improvement yet?
Total lockdown 17/3
So sadly it will get worse over the next few days - looks like it might ultimately be a bit worse than Italy unfortunately.
Before the lockdown were there attempts at social distancing / WFH or did that only really kick in with the lockdown? Just trying to calibrate how the informal social distancing etc. we did here might impact what we have to expect over the next fortnight...
Spain is still less than two weeks past its lockdown tho, isn’t it? So we shouldn’t expect an improvement yet?
Unfortunately there is now pressure from both the opposition and the Coalition partners for more drastic measures - Sanchez must decide this w/e. Personally, I think he has done well and should be backed rather than pressured too much at this point.
Worth noting that large parts of Spain are, statistically, safer than central London although obviously not in the larger cities.
How come the Prince of Wales met the criteria for having a test? Is being Royal on the list?
Probably, yes (certainly being a senior royal). Same as being someone who might come into contact with senior govt members. This is not the time to risk infecting the people running the operation.
Is Prince Charles running the operation?
The Queen is socially distancing herself, what does her heir have to do with anything?
Realpolitik means he would qualify but there's surely little operational reason to do with it.
I am recovering thank you. But my anecdata suggests that the initial classification system used by those Chinese researchers of 80% being 'mild' might be letting the word mild do a lot of heavy lifting.
I've had a lot of communicable illness over the past few years, with having small children. This is like no other I have experienced. Having your breath taken away over a matter of hours is scary.
We are getting better though. Thank you all for your best wishes.
Great to hear. Do you think you will figure in any of the official stats?
Those struggling with getting skimmed milk, even UHT milk, you can purchase milk powder in bulk from a number of online stores.
You don't actually need to ingest cow mucus.
Those filthy meat eaters are nabbing the stocks of non dairy alternatives as well. I know a few people who mock me, but when the cow juice shelves were empty stocked up on alternatives. Horrible bastards!
At conferences, back in the dim and distant, I was known as an opportunistic vegetarian, because, if there were two buffets I always went to the veggie one, since the queue was always shorter.
In a conference in Cambridge in the 90's the lunchtime catering was included in the conference fees and provided by a college. I and about 10 other vegetarians had to wait in line an extra 15 minutes for a new main course to be prepared. The problem was that so many non-vegetarians didn't like the look of the meat dish, way more people chose the vegetarian dish than the kitchen expected.
It was annoying that I had to wait, but was pleased that so many actually wanted the veggie rather than the meat dish
How come the Prince of Wales met the criteria for having a test? Is being Royal on the list?
Key worker?
I'd say he's never done a days work in his life.....
In the Royal Navy, messing about on boats plus thousands and thousands of engagements with the public since.
Don't be a ****.
That certainly told me. We're going to have to agree to disagree. If he didn't like it, he could always have fecked off to Canada like his kid to enjoy his millions.
I don't think he wants or needs sympathy, just that it is a job. You may not think Islington Council's Diversity Director, or the BBC's Head of Disinformation, or the heir to the throne are not jobs involving work.
But they are.
Absolutely they are. Sure, Charlie has to put the hours in but is hourly rate is pretty good.
I am recovering thank you. But my anecdata suggests that the initial classification system used by those Chinese researchers of 80% being 'mild' might be letting the word mild do a lot of heavy lifting.
I've had a lot of communicable illness over the past few years, with having small children. This is like no other I have experienced. Having your breath taken away over a matter of hours is scary.
We are getting better though. Thank you all for your best wishes.
Great news Mr Wise. Here's hoping it continues and accelerates. Best wishes to you and the family.
Of course the people we should feel the most sorry for are the self employed who have spent 3 years convincing HMRC they only earn £12,000 and now want the Government to reimburse what the £40,000 they actually earned!!
Karma
Never been Karma!!
Touch wood the daughters symptoms are less bad again today so i am feeling good
Following on from my post about reduced choice it will be fascinating to see the long term impact on some brands. A lot of brand owners spend £lots pushing the image and equity of their brand so that you pay more for it vs competitors. What we have clearly seen in recent weeks is people switching away from their regular product to alternatives based on whats available.
When consumers discover that a lot of brand USPs only really exist in the Marketing Director's ego...
How the likes of Nurofen and Beechams get away away with charging 4 quid for a pack of painkillers has always amazed me.
Because people sometimes have illnesses which are only cured by spending £4 rather than 27p for the same thing
How come the Prince of Wales met the criteria for having a test? Is being Royal on the list?
Probably, yes (certainly being a senior royal). Same as being someone who might come into contact with senior govt members. This is not the time to risk infecting the people running the operation.
Is Prince Charles running the operation?
The Queen is socially distancing herself, what does her heir have to do with anything?
Realpolitik means he would qualify but there's surely little operational reason to do with it.
Orders in Council need to be signed by someone. That's why I was arguing earlier that William should be declared regent, as the most senior royal in a low-risk category.
I am recovering thank you. But my anecdata suggests that the initial classification system used by those Chinese researchers of 80% being 'mild' might be letting the word mild do a lot of heavy lifting.
I've had a lot of communicable illness over the past few years, with having small children. This is like no other I have experienced. Having your breath taken away over a matter of hours is scary.
We are getting better though. Thank you all for your best wishes.
I don't believe the much touted 80% mild figure was from Chinese researchers, I believe it comes from an American researcher, who was on MSNBC last week saying he heavily regrets using that term. He was using it basically mean to mild enough that you aren't in need of treatment, but was clear that within that 80% it was a range from nothing to the worst flu you have ever had including pneumonia.
He meant mild - as in you would not need hospital intervention - but a bunch of those will be very poorly, just not at risk of passing away.
I am recovering thank you. But my anecdata suggests that the initial classification system used by those Chinese researchers of 80% being 'mild' might be letting the word mild do a lot of heavy lifting.
I've had a lot of communicable illness over the past few years, with having small children. This is like no other I have experienced. Having your breath taken away over a matter of hours is scary.
We are getting better though. Thank you all for your best wishes.
Great to hear. Do you think you will figure in any of the official stats?
As an asthmatic I find the idea very scary. Good job I've got a full set of inhalers.
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.
I was distracted and thinking about HIV, which replicates in the white blood cells.
This is so unhelpful to the cause. What on earth are they thinking?
They actually believe this.
Some people think that Tom Clancy was exaggerating when he wrote a story about a group of eco-extremists weaponising Ebola to cull the human population.
Such people exist (in terms of fantasising about such matters) - in fact, I have heard third hand, that the security services have a category for them on their watch lists.
How come the Prince of Wales met the criteria for having a test? Is being Royal on the list?
Probably, yes (certainly being a senior royal). Same as being someone who might come into contact with senior govt members. This is not the time to risk infecting the people running the operation.
Is Prince Charles running the operation?
The Queen is socially distancing herself, what does her heir have to do with anything?
Realpolitik means he would qualify but there's surely little operational reason to do with it.
Orders in Council need to be signed by someone. That's why I was arguing earlier that William should be declared regent, as the most senior royal in a low-risk category.
Those struggling with getting skimmed milk, even UHT milk, you can purchase milk powder in bulk from a number of online stores.
You don't actually need to ingest cow mucus.
Those filthy meat eaters are nabbing the stocks of non dairy alternatives as well. I know a few people who mock me, but when the cow juice shelves were empty stocked up on alternatives. Horrible bastards!
At conferences, back in the dim and distant, I was known as an opportunistic vegetarian, because, if there were two buffets I always went to the veggie one, since the queue was always shorter.
The new vegan meat substitutes often taste better, hence the popularity of vegan sausage rolls and the like. This is probably because the taste has been designed, rather than settling for whatever God made congealed grey meat taste of. At least, that was the verdict in our staff canteen.
The key is usually in the salt content.
Salt restrictions are a bloody nightmare. Sugar the same. Salt tipped in for flavour is one thing. Salt a functional part of key ingredients are another - several retailers have upper limits for salt and sugar copied from government edicts which makes it all but impossible to make own brand versions of some things.
And even in brands they're finding that people don't like their efforts. Nestle scientists spent years and a stack of cash creating crystalline sugar crystals to reduce sugar in chocolate. Milkybar Wowsomes being the short lived result with punters not buying them because they didn't taste right...
Of course the people we should feel the most sorry for are the self employed who have spent 3 years convincing HMRC they only earn £12,000 and now want the Government to reimburse what the £40,000 they actually earned!!
Karma
Never been Karma!!
Touch wood the daughters symptoms are less bad again today so i am feeling good
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.
I was distracted and thinking about HIV, which replicates in the white blood cells.
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.
I was distracted and thinking about HIV, which replicates in the white blood cells.
I am recovering thank you. But my anecdata suggests that the initial classification system used by those Chinese researchers of 80% being 'mild' might be letting the word mild do a lot of heavy lifting.
I've had a lot of communicable illness over the past few years, with having small children. This is like no other I have experienced. Having your breath taken away over a matter of hours is scary.
We are getting better though. Thank you all for your best wishes.
I don't believe the much touted 80% mild figure was from Chinese researchers, I believe it comes from an American researcher, who was on MSNBC last week saying he heavily regrets using that term. He was using it basically mean to mild enough that you aren't in need of treatment, but was clear that within that 80% it was a range from nothing to the worst flu you have ever had including pneumonia.
I seem to remember it coming from one of the early Chinese epi papers in NEJM or JAMA. Anyway it's misleading. I suspect there is a lot of heterogeneity here in the virus attack. But yes, mild is basically not going to hospital.
But going to hospital currently is endegenous with a global pandemic, ie in any other circumstances I would have been calling for an ambulance on Sunday night.
As I had the spo2 monitor (thank you thank you thank you Foxy), that saw my wife and me through it. Despite it seeming like we couldn't breathe, our blood was getting enough oxygen.
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.
I was distracted and thinking about HIV, which replicates in the white blood cells.
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.
I was distracted and thinking about HIV, which replicates in the white blood cells.
Of course the people we should feel the most sorry for are the self employed who have spent 3 years convincing HMRC they only earn £12,000 and now want the Government to reimburse what the £40,000 they actually earned!!
Karma
The ones I really feel for are the ones who spent years telling HMRC they were on 12K but were earning 120k.
Range Rovers don't just fuel themselves, you know. And the vet bills for the children's ponies can be crippling.
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.
I was distracted and thinking about HIV, which replicates in the white blood cells.
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.
I was distracted and thinking about HIV, which replicates in the white blood cells.
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.
I was distracted and thinking about HIV, which replicates in the white blood cells.
Kill All Sparrows! Had unforeseen consequences. It was reaction to a genuine issue, not wanting anyone to starve.
Shut the Economy! A reaction to protect the NHS, under 20k first wave covid deaths not spike of 500 thousand. But what are the unforeseen consequences?
The obvious one is further wave of panic buying making first wave look like vicars tea party, as people realise with manufacturing stopped, stocks going down, they won’t see a toilet role or tin of beans for many months to come.
Another is what you did want to keep going has to stop due to lack of resource or ability to repair. Do we rely on resource supply lines important to power generation, water purification? Oil refineries?
Will refuse start piling up, not a good sight in pandemic?
Any others you can think of?
Relatedly, here’s some optimism from Germany (Holland is reporting the same slowing)
If we end up with numbers like a bad flu outbreak, there will be the mother of all rows between those saying We shouldn’t have shut the economy for a flu, and those saying It’s because we shut the economy that it feels like a flu
And then we will all wait for that second wave in the winter.
A bad flu outbreak is around 50,000 extra deaths. Do you think we will reach that?
You seem to be conflating two things. Not all excess winter deaths will be flu related. Most flu deaths will probably also be excess winter deaths, but the same is not true in reverse.
I am not conflating two things. If you read the report thoroughly it puts the excess winter deaths down to flu.
No, it doesn't. It's one of the factors, and likely to contribute to more cases than just those where it appears on the death certificate. But it's not the only factor.
This from the opening paragraph: While colder weather can be a risk to health for older people and those with underlying health conditions, this article shows in recent years, higher levels of excess winter mortality are also related to the virulence of circulating flu strains.
It is likely that the differences between average and bad years are predominantly driven by how bad the flu levels were that year, but it's still clear that, in any year, there would still be excess winter deaths even without flu.
There's also some charts there that show that not all flu deaths occur during winter, which makes the comparison you're trying to make even more complicated.
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.
I was distracted and thinking about HIV, which replicates in the white blood cells.
Spain is still less than two weeks past its lockdown tho, isn’t it? So we shouldn’t expect an improvement yet?
Unfortunately there is now pressure from both the opposition and the Coalition partners for more drastic measures - Sanchez must decide this w/e. Personally, I think he has done well and should be backed rather than pressured too much at this point.
Worth noting that large parts of Spain are, statistically, safer than central London although obviously not in the larger cities.
True, but not surprising. Large parts of the UK also have a lower risk of infection compared to Central London, as have large parts of New York State. This is just a result of the virus being spread by people and cities have a higher population density than in the country.
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.
I was distracted and thinking about HIV, which replicates in the white blood cells.
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.
I was distracted and thinking about HIV, which replicates in the white blood cells.
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.
I was distracted and thinking about HIV, which replicates in the white blood cells.
How come the Prince of Wales met the criteria for having a test? Is being Royal on the list?
Key worker?
I'd say he's never done a days work in his life.....
In the Royal Navy, messing about on boats plus thousands and thousands of engagements with the public since.
Don't be a ****.
That certainly told me. We're going to have to agree to disagree. If he didn't like it, he could always have fecked off to Canada like his kid to enjoy his millions.
I don't think he wants or needs sympathy, just that it is a job. You may not think Islington Council's Diversity Director, or the BBC's Head of Disinformation, or the heir to the throne are not jobs involving work.
But they are.
Absolutely they are. Sure, Charlie has to put the hours in but is hourly rate is pretty good.
Indeed, I heard a well informed rumour that one senior royal was recently helicoptered to a large aristo estate in Cornwall, for isolation.
The ongoing operation to keep Prince Andrew away from dangerous temptations like teenage girls and microphones may of course not be anything to do with Coronavirus.
I am recovering thank you. But my anecdata suggests that the initial classification system used by those Chinese researchers of 80% being 'mild' might be letting the word mild do a lot of heavy lifting.
I've had a lot of communicable illness over the past few years, with having small children. This is like no other I have experienced. Having your breath taken away over a matter of hours is scary.
We are getting better though. Thank you all for your best wishes.
Great to hear. Do you think you will figure in any of the official stats?
No that's why the official Covid19 test stat is fairly meaningless.
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.
I was distracted and thinking about HIV, which replicates in the white blood cells.
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.
I was distracted and thinking about HIV, which replicates in the white blood cells.
Indeed, I heard a well informed rumour that one senior royal was recently helicoptered to a large aristo estate in Cornwall, for isolation.
The ongoing operation to keep Prince Andrew away from dangerous temptations like teenage girls and microphones may of course not be anything to do with Coronavirus.
Of course the people we should feel the most sorry for are the self employed who have spent 3 years convincing HMRC they only earn £12,000 and now want the Government to reimburse what the £40,000 they actually earned!!
Karma
Never been Karma!!
Touch wood the daughters symptoms are less bad again today so i am feeling good
Re Prince Charles, As I said last night with those clips of Putin in the full hazmat suit, I am really surprised how in general world leaders and VVVVIPs don't seem to have adjusted their general behaviour much.
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.
I was distracted and thinking about HIV, which replicates in the white blood cells.
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.
I was distracted and thinking about HIV, which replicates in the white blood cells.
I am recovering thank you. But my anecdata suggests that the initial classification system used by those Chinese researchers of 80% being 'mild' might be letting the word mild do a lot of heavy lifting.
I've had a lot of communicable illness over the past few years, with having small children. This is like no other I have experienced. Having your breath taken away over a matter of hours is scary.
We are getting better though. Thank you all for your best wishes.
I don't believe the much touted 80% mild figure was from Chinese researchers, I believe it comes from an American researcher, who was on MSNBC last week saying he heavily regrets using that term. He was using it basically mean to mild enough that you aren't in need of treatment, but was clear that within that 80% it was a range from nothing to the worst flu you have ever had including pneumonia.
On an informal scale "mild symptoms" should be between "yes I am a bit ill and I think I should go to the GP/ring the Corona hotline." The stage where you feel "bloody awful" is definately more than mild symptoms.
Indeed, I heard a well informed rumour that one senior royal was recently helicoptered to a large aristo estate in Cornwall, for isolation.
The ongoing operation to keep Prince Andrew away from dangerous temptations like teenage girls and microphones may of course not be anything to do with Coronavirus.
You'm want to watch them Cornish girls, my lover!
It was one night, it was a mistake, and we agreed not to talk about it...
I am recovering thank you. But my anecdata suggests that the initial classification system used by those Chinese researchers of 80% being 'mild' might be letting the word mild do a lot of heavy lifting.
I've had a lot of communicable illness over the past few years, with having small children. This is like no other I have experienced. Having your breath taken away over a matter of hours is scary.
We are getting better though. Thank you all for your best wishes.
I don't believe the much touted 80% mild figure was from Chinese researchers, I believe it comes from an American researcher, who was on MSNBC last week saying he heavily regrets using that term. He was using it basically mean to mild enough that you aren't in need of treatment, but was clear that within that 80% it was a range from nothing to the worst flu you have ever had including pneumonia.
I seem to remember it coming from one of the early Chinese epi papers in NEJM or JAMA. Anyway it's misleading. I suspect there is a lot of heterogeneity here in the virus attack. But yes, mild is basically not going to hospital.
But going to hospital currently is endegenous with a global pandemic, ie in any other circumstances I would have been calling for an ambulance on Sunday night.
As I had the spo2 monitor (thank you thank you thank you Foxy), that saw my wife and me through it. Despite it seeming like we couldn't breathe, our blood was getting enough oxygen.
Fucking hell. That is scary.
This horrible virus is so weirdly various. Some old people get it and barely have a sniffle Fit young people get it and they nearly die.
At least you’ve had it and now have some immunity.
Yes. There is that. I am keen to get hold of an immunoassay so I can start to do some good in the community when I am recovered.
You do not want to catch this bastard no matter your age or seeming healthiness.
How come the Prince of Wales met the criteria for having a test? Is being Royal on the list?
Probably, yes (certainly being a senior royal). Same as being someone who might come into contact with senior govt members. This is not the time to risk infecting the people running the operation.
Is Prince Charles running the operation?
The Queen is socially distancing herself, what does her heir have to do with anything?
Realpolitik means he would qualify but there's surely little operational reason to do with it.
Orders in Council need to be signed by someone. That's why I was arguing earlier that William should be declared regent, as the most senior royal in a low-risk category.
Re Prince Charles, As I said last night with those clips of Putin in the full hazmat suit, I am really surprised how in general world leaders and VVVVIPs don't seem to have adjusted their general behaviour much.
Perhaps it is not to scare the horses, but still.
Merkel is in full self isolation since Friday evening.
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.
I was distracted and thinking about HIV, which replicates in the white blood cells.
How come the Prince of Wales met the criteria for having a test? Is being Royal on the list?
Probably, yes (certainly being a senior royal). Same as being someone who might come into contact with senior govt members. This is not the time to risk infecting the people running the operation.
Is Prince Charles running the operation?
The Queen is socially distancing herself, what does her heir have to do with anything?
Realpolitik means he would qualify but there's surely little operational reason to do with it.
Orders in Council need to be signed by someone. That's why I was arguing earlier that William should be declared regent, as the most senior royal in a low-risk category.
Isn't he already a councillor of state?
Teach young George joined up writing quick.
Unless he can forge his uncle's signature as well, that wouldn't help.
The service also included the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds, Jeremy Corbyn and Dominic Raab.
I am recovering thank you. But my anecdata suggests that the initial classification system used by those Chinese researchers of 80% being 'mild' might be letting the word mild do a lot of heavy lifting.
I've had a lot of communicable illness over the past few years, with having small children. This is like no other I have experienced. Having your breath taken away over a matter of hours is scary.
We are getting better though. Thank you all for your best wishes.
I don't believe the much touted 80% mild figure was from Chinese researchers, I believe it comes from an American researcher, who was on MSNBC last week saying he heavily regrets using that term. He was using it basically mean to mild enough that you aren't in need of treatment, but was clear that within that 80% it was a range from nothing to the worst flu you have ever had including pneumonia.
I seem to remember it coming from one of the early Chinese epi papers in NEJM or JAMA. Anyway it's misleading. I suspect there is a lot of heterogeneity here in the virus attack. But yes, mild is basically not going to hospital.
But going to hospital currently is endegenous with a global pandemic, ie in any other circumstances I would have been calling for an ambulance on Sunday night.
As I had the spo2 monitor (thank you thank you thank you Foxy), that saw my wife and me through it. Despite it seeming like we couldn't breathe, our blood was getting enough oxygen.
Fucking hell. That is scary.
This horrible virus is so weirdly various. Some old people get it and barely have a sniffle Fit young people get it and they nearly die.
At least you’ve had it and now have some immunity.
... and will SOON have immunity. You should wait a couple of weeks without symptoms before taking immunity for granted.
Comments
Yep. My primary client base struggles with manufacturing at times - they need GMP facilities, but are usually short runs produced on a campaign basis, which the big CMOs hate
I have seen it done here repeatedly over the last few days whilst I've been trying to recover from this dreadful virus and it is infuriating to read.
Simpletons like Hitchens plant brain worms into society knowing full well that if they were actually in a position to do anything, they would never have the luxury to take the position they espouse.
It's morally repugnant.
Don't be a ****.
Hope you are recovering?
But he said he thought the current social isolation measures were not sustainable for the rest of the year. As they were relaxed, there would be some resurgence, he said.
https://www.morgenpost.de/vermischtes/article228762221/Coronavirus-Corona-News-Ticker-Aktuelle-Zahlen-Fast-34-000-Infizierte-und-164-Tote.html
is today reporting about 1000 patients in intensive care in Germany, and 4000 in total being treated in hospitals. They are reporting figures from the DKG (German Hospital Society), which may or may not be complete
The official RKI data (deaths and confirmed cases) for Germany is available here
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/478220a4c454480e823b17327b2bf1d4
I believe the infections and deaths on worldometer are correct, they are always a bit higher than the RKI figures because they are more up-to-date.
I've had a lot of communicable illness over the past few years, with having small children. This is like no other I have experienced. Having your breath taken away over a matter of hours is scary.
We are getting better though. Thank you all for your best wishes.
But they are.
Before the lockdown were there attempts at social distancing / WFH or did that only really kick in with the lockdown? Just trying to calibrate how the informal social distancing etc. we did here might impact what we have to expect over the next fortnight...
The Queen is socially distancing herself, what does her heir have to do with anything?
Realpolitik means he would qualify but there's surely little operational reason to do with it.
It was annoying that I had to wait, but was pleased that so many actually wanted the veggie rather than the meat dish
Touch wood the daughters symptoms are less bad again today so i am feeling good
Is why they ordered the closure of hotels.
As you say - he regrets his choice of words now
If it wasn't such a nasty bug, watching the science done in real time would be quite fascinating.
Hope your dad is recovering.
Such people exist (in terms of fantasising about such matters) - in fact, I have heard third hand, that the security services have a category for them on their watch lists.
And even in brands they're finding that people don't like their efforts. Nestle scientists spent years and a stack of cash creating crystalline sugar crystals to reduce sugar in chocolate. Milkybar Wowsomes being the short lived result with punters not buying them because they didn't taste right...
But going to hospital currently is endegenous with a global pandemic, ie in any other circumstances I would have been calling for an ambulance on Sunday night.
As I had the spo2 monitor (thank you thank you thank you Foxy), that saw my wife and me through it. Despite it seeming like we couldn't breathe, our blood was getting enough oxygen.
The ones I really feel for are the ones who spent years telling HMRC they were on 12K but were earning 120k.
Range Rovers don't just fuel themselves, you know. And the vet bills for the children's ponies can be crippling.
This from the opening paragraph:
While colder weather can be a risk to health for older people and those with underlying health conditions, this article shows in recent years, higher levels of excess winter mortality are also related to the virulence of circulating flu strains.
It is likely that the differences between average and bad years are predominantly driven by how bad the flu levels were that year, but it's still clear that, in any year, there would still be excess winter deaths even without flu.
There's also some charts there that show that not all flu deaths occur during winter, which makes the comparison you're trying to make even more complicated.
When did XR first notice it was a far right a/c.
https://twitter.com/RoyalDickie/status/1242773647435145216?s=20
Perhaps it is not to scare the horses, but still.
You do not want to catch this bastard no matter your age or seeming healthiness.
Classy, understated way of reporting the sad news, if you don’t mind me saying.
Chefs, waiters and other staff were called to a meeting and told their contracts were being terminated.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8148839/Chef-slams-Gordon-Ramsay-terminates-employment-500-staff.html
The service also included the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds, Jeremy Corbyn and Dominic Raab.