Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
This was discussed at length here as it happens.
The strong counter-argument put forward is that the virus multiplies so fast, that initial 'viral load' was not material, and a minor one would just quickly multiply into a major one.
I think there's a counter-counter-argument that it's worse to have more areas of the body affected initially (eg both lungs not one) as the virus has more 'bases' to colonise.
Either way, it's interesting to theorise that there's a 'safer' way to infect the body to get an immunity. I was talking about fecal transplant here yesterday, which probably people won't want me to talk about again.
This stuff about Branson is way way too personal. Why should every other airline business in the uk be bailed out but not him? And they will be.
Oh unsubstantiated and irrelevant rumours about his private life, ok fair enough.
Bogoff Richard
Buy BA and get Virgin free ?
Airlines haven't been paying for the global overheating they contribute to, nor for the rapid spread of global pandemics. Bail them out? A disgusting idea. The nonflying majority have already been paying a massive subsidy to frequent flyers for years.
I see that two of the health experts accusing Boris Johnson of "complacency" in this Guardian piece - Dr. John Ashton, a former regional director of Public Health England and Prof Susan Michie, director of the centre for behaviour change at University College London - just happen to be Labour Party members:
To be fair, the Gov't are getting a panning across the whole of the MSM, including the Mail.
A panning for what?
Failing to heed their own advice on social distancing, quarantining and protection, thus spreading the virus around the heart of Gov't. Today's press is a mauling.
It's an age-old adage but if you want the public to take something seriously words alone are not enough. You have to be shown to do as you do not just do as you say. But the real gripe in the MSM today is that this is chaotic and destabilising: we are close to being without a functioning Government at a time of national crisis. Not clever.
We did sort-of get there but there are horror stories beginning to emerge from London. Whilst I applaud Johnson for acting, he did so too little and too late.
Yeah but those were mistakes three weeks ago. Can they not start looking forward, seeing what mistakes are going on now or what mistakes might happen soon and offer some constructive criticism?
It's like bemoaning the failures that led to Dunkirk whilst the British state is gearing up to fight the Battle of Britain.
Surely the predictions and action plans are improving as the boffins aren’t relying on fake data from China ?
Do we have any firm evidence that the data coming out of China is fake ? Much of what we’ve seen since confirms what China reported, and continues to report about the virus.
Sure, it is possible that they have manipulated the figures on infections and deaths (and there is reasonable suspicion that it’s not quite as fully under control as they claim), but there is very little hard evidence for deception on a large scale.
Deception is probably happening at the local rather than national level. Health authorities worry that case figures will reflect badly on them and try to hide them.
Nevertheless infection rates in China outside of Hubei are almost certainly very low and much lower than Europe including the UK. Reasons for thinking this are:
- The very rigorous containment measures in place; - The highly developed Chinese bush telegraph really isn't coming up with a load of deaths and people with symptoms, outwith Hubei. If there were we would almost certainly know about them. Hubei is a different kettle of fish; there's plenty of anecdotal evidence from there; - if there's an outbreak in Guangdong province in particular, it would spill over into Hong Kong. It hasn't
On a happier note yesterday I really enjoyed my 2 hour whatsapp video call helping my granddaughter with her chemistry. I think I got an A at O level but must confess I had to resort to Google a couple of times. Did you all know the difference between a molecule and a compound? And I dont remember doing chromatography at all.
OK, I’ll risk looking like a fool, but I’ll have a go:
A molecule is a chain of atoms, which may or may not be more of one element; A compound is a molecule made up of at least two elements.
I got a B at GCSE chemistry, so if I’m wrong, we’ll know that 20 years ago grades were a joke.
I got an A so I am well qualified to say you are broadly correct. I wish I had done it at A Level but I was told History, Geography and Chemistry was untimetableable.
On a happier note yesterday I really enjoyed my 2 hour whatsapp video call helping my granddaughter with her chemistry. I think I got an A at O level but must confess I had to resort to Google a couple of times. Did you all know the difference between a molecule and a compound? And I dont remember doing chromatography at all.
OK, I’ll risk looking like a fool, but I’ll have a go:
A molecule is a chain of atoms, which may or may not be more of one element; A compound is a molecule made up of at least two elements.
I got a B at GCSE chemistry, so if I’m wrong, we’ll know that 20 years ago grades were a joke.
I got an A so I am well qualified to say you are broadly correct. I wish I had done it at A Level but I was told History, Geography and Chemistry was untimetableable.
I’m glad to see you had your priorities right though!
How are the trials going here for use of existing drugs to treat the virus?
I read a week or so ago that there were trials using hydroxychloroquine on 2 or 3 patients which seems ridiculously low.
I'd like to see many already approved drugs that could help trialled on patients as much as possible. Yes in ideal times you'd spend years testing these things, but we really don't have the luxury of time at the moment.
The current strategy seems to be to ignore a patient until their symptoms become so severe they need to be put on a ventilator, rather than try and treat them early to stop them needing one.
Standard UK healthcare
Yes the model seems to be to ignore ailments when they are in the early stages and easy to treat and then pull out all the stops at great expense when things get serious.
On a happier note yesterday I really enjoyed my 2 hour whatsapp video call helping my granddaughter with her chemistry. I think I got an A at O level but must confess I had to resort to Google a couple of times. Did you all know the difference between a molecule and a compound? And I dont remember doing chromatography at all.
OK, I’ll risk looking like a fool, but I’ll have a go:
A molecule is a chain of atoms, which may or may not be more of one element; A compound is a molecule made up of at least two elements.
I got a B at GCSE chemistry, so if I’m wrong, we’ll know that 20 years ago grades were a joke.
I got an A so I am well qualified to say you are broadly correct. I wish I had done it at A Level but I was told History, Geography and Chemistry was untimetableable.
I’m glad to see you had your priorities right though!
None of the above et al. basically until we develop either a vaccine or a true cure, thousands x thousands will die and there will be no end. Peaks may come and go but the virus won't.
Spanish flu ran for 3-4 years. That will be the same with coronavirus until one or other of the above occurs. And if it goes on that long deaths will be counted in the millions.
Globally yes but "people" were predicting millions in the UK, its just not going to happen.
Let's hope not. It's too soon to be pedalling optimism. The storm hasn't even begun here yet. It will soon.
I was chatting to someone in north London last night and she said, and I could hear, the ambulances were going past on blue lights every two minutes.
Every journalist knows that London has a deep, deep, problem and we are about to see a tsunami, as one newspaper (not my own) put it this morning.
Have a good day everyone. And before running myself and Eadric into the ground, consider this. We've been proved right.
G'day.
More BS; neither of you has been right about anything of any specificity.
And both of you are actively enjoying this far more than is decent.
Eadric knocked it out of the park, predictionwise, on this, and for some reason precipitated in you a hissy fit which was funny and is now less so. Usually you flipflop between "he didn't predict it" and "he did predict it, what a doom monger". The suggestion that he or anyone else is enjoying what has already infected posters here and killed their loved ones is new, and plainly just a new attack line you are trying on for size, and thoroughly disgusting. Please do not do it again.
Eadric predicted 10% - 25% of people will die of Covid 19 the other day. I wouldn't call that knocking it out of the park predictionwise. And tbf Eadric didn't predict it, they were downplaying it at the beginning of February when it was obvious that it was very serious and then switched to the "a quarter of you are going to die" doom mongering, so in that Ianb2 is right.
And I'm sorry to say that I also had the impression that Eadric enjoys it occasionally. But there seem to be 2 Eadrics, often they are quite reasonable.
This stuff about Branson is way way too personal. Why should every other airline business in the uk be bailed out but not him? And they will be.
Oh unsubstantiated and irrelevant rumours about his private life, ok fair enough.
Bogoff Richard
Buy BA and get Virgin free ?
Airlines haven't been paying for the global overheating they contribute to, nor for the rapid spread of global pandemics. Bail them out? A disgusting idea. The nonflying majority have already been paying a massive subsidy to frequent flyers for years.
I was making a joke, not a policy suggestion.
Johnson won’t bail out Branson.
He never misses an opportunity to screw virgins.
With Carrie moved out, he could have one hell of a coronavirus party this weekend....
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
This was discussed at length here as it happens.
The strong counter-argument put forward is that the virus multiplies so fast, that initial 'viral load' was not material, and a minor one would just quickly multiply into a major one.
I think there's a counter-counter-argument that it's worse to have more areas of the body affected initially (eg both lungs not one) as the virus has more 'bases' to colonise.
Either way, it's interesting to theorise that there's a 'safer' way to infect the body to get an immunity. I was talking about fecal transplant here yesterday, which probably people won't want me to talk about again.
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
This was discussed at length here as it happens.
The strong counter-argument put forward is that the virus multiplies so fast, that initial 'viral load' was not material, and a minor one would just quickly multiply into a major one.
I think there's a counter-counter-argument that it's worse to have more areas of the body affected initially (eg both lungs not one) as the virus has more 'bases' to colonise.
Either way, it's interesting to theorise that there's a 'safer' way to infect the body to get an immunity. I was talking about fecal transplant here yesterday, which probably people won't want me to talk about again.
A number of vaccines (yellow fever for example) are done with live virus, attenuated to be less harmful. Not the original pathogen, for fairly obvious reasons.
On a happier note yesterday I really enjoyed my 2 hour whatsapp video call helping my granddaughter with her chemistry. I think I got an A at O level but must confess I had to resort to Google a couple of times. Did you all know the difference between a molecule and a compound? And I dont remember doing chromatography at all.
OK, I’ll risk looking like a fool, but I’ll have a go:
A molecule is a chain of atoms, which may or may not be more of one element; A compound is a molecule made up of at least two elements.
I got a B at GCSE chemistry, so if I’m wrong, we’ll know that 20 years ago grades were a joke.
I got an A so I am well qualified to say you are broadly correct. I wish I had done it at A Level but I was told History, Geography and Chemistry was untimetableable.
I’m glad to see you had your priorities right though!
A level history is a doss.
Okaaaay...
I will agree it’s not as hard as further maths, ordinary maths or physics. I’m curious as to why you think it’s ‘a doss’ and what experience you base that on.
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
This was discussed at length here as it happens.
The strong counter-argument put forward is that the virus multiplies so fast, that initial 'viral load' was not material, and a minor one would just quickly multiply into a major one.
I think there's a counter-counter-argument that it's worse to have more areas of the body affected initially (eg both lungs not one) as the virus has more 'bases' to colonise.
Either way, it's interesting to theorise that there's a 'safer' way to infect the body to get an immunity. I was talking about fecal transplant here yesterday, which probably people won't want me to talk about again.
Ah thanks for the explanation.
So does that mean that reports of the amount of virus you initially contract determining the severity of the illness is wrong?
Anecdotally it seems that doctors with no existing medical conditions who are exposed to a lot of the virus are much more likely to die at a young age than anyone else.
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
This was discussed at length here as it happens.
The strong counter-argument put forward is that the virus multiplies so fast, that initial 'viral load' was not material, and a minor one would just quickly multiply into a major one.
I think there's a counter-counter-argument that it's worse to have more areas of the body affected initially (eg both lungs not one) as the virus has more 'bases' to colonise.
Either way, it's interesting to theorise that there's a 'safer' way to infect the body to get an immunity. I was talking about fecal transplant here yesterday, which probably people won't want me to talk about again.
Notwithstanding alternative careful explanations that have been detailed on here, the Professor speaking on Wednesday's Newsnight said the amount of virus you are infected with "almost certainly" affects the battle between the virus and the immune system (22 minutes in)...
How are the trials going here for use of existing drugs to treat the virus?
I read a week or so ago that there were trials using hydroxychloroquine on 2 or 3 patients which seems ridiculously low.
I'd like to see many already approved drugs that could help trialled on patients as much as possible. Yes in ideal times you'd spend years testing these things, but we really don't have the luxury of time at the moment.
The current strategy seems to be to ignore a patient until their symptoms become so severe they need to be put on a ventilator, rather than try and treat them early to stop them needing one.
Standard UK healthcare
Yes the model seems to be to ignore ailments when they are in the early stages and easy to treat and then pull out all the stops at great expense when things get serious.
On a happier note yesterday I really enjoyed my 2 hour whatsapp video call helping my granddaughter with her chemistry. I think I got an A at O level but must confess I had to resort to Google a couple of times. Did you all know the difference between a molecule and a compound? And I dont remember doing chromatography at all.
OK, I’ll risk looking like a fool, but I’ll have a go:
A molecule is a chain of atoms, which may or may not be more of one element; A compound is a molecule made up of at least two elements.
I got a B at GCSE chemistry, so if I’m wrong, we’ll know that 20 years ago grades were a joke.
I got an A so I am well qualified to say you are broadly correct. I wish I had done it at A Level but I was told History, Geography and Chemistry was untimetableable.
I’m glad to see you had your priorities right though!
A level history is a doss.
Okaaaay...
I will agree it’s not as hard as further maths, ordinary maths or physics. I’m curious as to why you think it’s ‘a doss’ and what experience you base that on.
Just a joke, but FWIW my A levels were Maths, Further Maths, Physics and History. 😊 ( I also took politics AS for a laugh)
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
You can get the full disease from just three virus particles, according to the Newsnight professor. Presumably with one or two, your immune system boots them out without learning from the experience.
There's a reason the smallpox jab doesn't actually contain any smallpox....
The Newsnight professor doesn’t know that. It’s theoretically possible, but for obvious reasons, no one has done the experiment. We simply don’t have much data - and the dose response varies massively from virus to virus. (The New Yorker article I posted below has quite a good discussion of this.)
We don’t even have the ID50 number for test animals. (ID50 - the viral dose which will infect half of test subjects)
Establishing the dose which is likely to infect, but is also significantly less likely to lead to severe disease is an even bigger problem.
On a happier note yesterday I really enjoyed my 2 hour whatsapp video call helping my granddaughter with her chemistry. I think I got an A at O level but must confess I had to resort to Google a couple of times. Did you all know the difference between a molecule and a compound? And I dont remember doing chromatography at all.
OK, I’ll risk looking like a fool, but I’ll have a go:
A molecule is a chain of atoms, which may or may not be more of one element; A compound is a molecule made up of at least two elements.
I got a B at GCSE chemistry, so if I’m wrong, we’ll know that 20 years ago grades were a joke.
I got an A so I am well qualified to say you are broadly correct. I wish I had done it at A Level but I was told History, Geography and Chemistry was untimetableable.
I’m glad to see you had your priorities right though!
I had to choose between chemistry and computer studies at A level and went for the latter. Computer studies was in it's very first year, certainly at our school.
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
You can get the full disease from just three virus particles, according to the Newsnight professor. Presumably with one or two, your immune system boots them out without learning from the experience.
There's a reason the smallpox jab doesn't actually contain any smallpox....
The Newsnight professor doesn’t know that. It’s theoretically possible, but for obvious reasons, no one has done the experiment. We simply don’t have much data - and the dose response varies massively from virus to virus. (The New Yorker article I posted below has quite a good discussion of this.)
We don’t even have the ID50 number for test animals. (ID50 - the viral dose which will infect half of test subjects)
Establishing the dose which is likely to infect, but is also significantly less likely to lead to severe disease is an even bigger problem.
Yes, the New Yorker article is very good. It does support her view that there is a link between the size of first infection and severity, and to be fair to the professor she did say "almost certainly".
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
This was discussed at length here as it happens.
The strong counter-argument put forward is that the virus multiplies so fast, that initial 'viral load' was not material, and a minor one would just quickly multiply into a major one.
I think there's a counter-counter-argument that it's worse to have more areas of the body affected initially (eg both lungs not one) as the virus has more 'bases' to colonise.
Either way, it's interesting to theorise that there's a 'safer' way to infect the body to get an immunity. I was talking about fecal transplant here yesterday, which probably people won't want me to talk about again.
Notwithstanding alternative careful explanations that have been detailed on here, the Professor speaking on Wednesday's Newsnight said the amount of virus you are infected with "almost certainly" affects the battle between the virus and the immune system (22 minutes in)...
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
It's the basic building bock of a lot of vaccines yes - but way more complicated to achieve without causing way too much harm.
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
You can get the full disease from just three virus particles, according to the Newsnight professor. Presumably with one or two, your immune system boots them out without learning from the experience.
There's a reason the smallpox jab doesn't actually contain any smallpox....
The Newsnight professor doesn’t know that. It’s theoretically possible, but for obvious reasons, no one has done the experiment. We simply don’t have much data - and the dose response varies massively from virus to virus. (The New Yorker article I posted below has quite a good discussion of this.)
We don’t even have the ID50 number for test animals. (ID50 - the viral dose which will infect half of test subjects)
Establishing the dose which is likely to infect, but is also significantly less likely to lead to severe disease is an even bigger problem.
Yes, the New Yorker article is very good. It does support her view that there is a link between the size of first infection and severity, and to be fair to the professor she did say "almost certainly".
I’m struggling to see how you would run any kind of experiment on this, though. We’re rather more likely to have a vaccine before anyone works that one out.
On the other hand, this does seem to be a underexplored topic in virology (?), and the unprecedented scientific effort going in to studying this pandemic will throw up interesting results.
None of the above et al. basically until we develop either a vaccine or a true cure, thousands x thousands will die and there will be no end. Peaks may come and go but the virus won't.
Spanish flu ran for 3-4 years. That will be the same with coronavirus until one or other of the above occurs. And if it goes on that long deaths will be counted in the millions.
Globally yes but "people" were predicting millions in the UK, its just not going to happen.
Let's hope not. It's too soon to be pedalling optimism. The storm hasn't even begun here yet. It will soon.
I was chatting to someone in north London last night and she said, and I could hear, the ambulances were going past on blue lights every two minutes.
Every journalist knows that London has a deep, deep, problem and we are about to see a tsunami, as one newspaper (not my own) put it this morning.
Have a good day everyone. And before running myself and Eadric into the ground, consider this. We've been proved right.
G'day.
More BS; neither of you has been right about anything of any specificity.
And both of you are actively enjoying this far more than is decent.
Eadric knocked it out of the park, predictionwise, on this, and for some reason precipitated in you a hissy fit which was funny and is now less so. Usually you flipflop between "he didn't predict it" and "he did predict it, what a doom monger". The suggestion that he or anyone else is enjoying what has already infected posters here and killed their loved ones is new, and plainly just a new attack line you are trying on for size, and thoroughly disgusting. Please do not do it again.
No, he really didn't. I keep telling you to go look, but for some reason you never make the effort.
On a happier note yesterday I really enjoyed my 2 hour whatsapp video call helping my granddaughter with her chemistry. I think I got an A at O level but must confess I had to resort to Google a couple of times. Did you all know the difference between a molecule and a compound? And I dont remember doing chromatography at all.
OK, I’ll risk looking like a fool, but I’ll have a go:
A molecule is a chain of atoms, which may or may not be more of one element; A compound is a molecule made up of at least two elements.
I got a B at GCSE chemistry, so if I’m wrong, we’ll know that 20 years ago grades were a joke.
I got an A so I am well qualified to say you are broadly correct. I wish I had done it at A Level but I was told History, Geography and Chemistry was untimetableable.
I’m glad to see you had your priorities right though!
I had to choose between chemistry and computer studies at A level and went for the latter. Computer studies was in it's very first year, certainly at our school.
We had a “computer room” in the mid eighties to early nineties when I was at secondary school. I was banned from it as a result of my first ever programme -
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
You can get the full disease from just three virus particles, according to the Newsnight professor. Presumably with one or two, your immune system boots them out without learning from the experience.
There's a reason the smallpox jab doesn't actually contain any smallpox....
I sometimes wonder whether we watched the same show :-) IIRC the reference to 3 particles related to flu.
How are the trials going here for use of existing drugs to treat the virus?
I read a week or so ago that there were trials using hydroxychloroquine on 2 or 3 patients which seems ridiculously low.
I'd like to see many already approved drugs that could help trialled on patients as much as possible. Yes in ideal times you'd spend years testing these things, but we really don't have the luxury of time at the moment.
The current strategy seems to be to ignore a patient until their symptoms become so severe they need to be put on a ventilator, rather than try and treat them early to stop them needing one.
Standard UK healthcare
Yes the model seems to be to ignore ailments when they are in the early stages and easy to treat and then pull out all the stops at great expense when things get serious.
Sadly, that is the worldwide standard of care. Essentially supportive care with oxygen, fluids etc, while the body fights it's own battle. While there are interesting possibilities for treatment, there is really not much evidence that either antivirals or anti inflammatory drugs such as hydroxychloroquine* make a difference. It is worth noting that toxicity is a real issue. There is a body of thought that the high mortality of Spanish Flu in young people was due in part to excessive doses of the then wonder drug of asprin. Doses of 4 asprin per hour were often used.
*the French study on hydroxychloroquine had 16 in the treatment arm, but only 11 were included in the analysis. 1 died, 3 transferred to ICU and 1 stopped because of side effects. It is rather like me claiming to be a successful political gambler by excluding all my losing bets!
On a happier note yesterday I really enjoyed my 2 hour whatsapp video call helping my granddaughter with her chemistry. I think I got an A at O level but must confess I had to resort to Google a couple of times. Did you all know the difference between a molecule and a compound? And I dont remember doing chromatography at all.
OK, I’ll risk looking like a fool, but I’ll have a go:
A molecule is a chain of atoms, which may or may not be more of one element; A compound is a molecule made up of at least two elements.
I got a B at GCSE chemistry, so if I’m wrong, we’ll know that 20 years ago grades were a joke.
I got an A so I am well qualified to say you are broadly correct. I wish I had done it at A Level but I was told History, Geography and Chemistry was untimetableable.
I’m glad to see you had your priorities right though!
I had to choose between chemistry and computer studies at A level and went for the latter. Computer studies was in it's very first year, certainly at our school.
We had a “computer room” in the mid eighties to early nineties when I was at secondary school. I was banned from it as a result of my first ever programme -
10 PRINT Mr Jenkins is a Twat 20 GOTO 10
Not surprised you were banned, it wouldn’t have run. No quotes.
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
You can get the full disease from just three virus particles, according to the Newsnight professor. Presumably with one or two, your immune system boots them out without learning from the experience.
There's a reason the smallpox jab doesn't actually contain any smallpox....
I sometimes wonder whether we watched the same show :-) IIRC the reference to 3 particles related to flu.
Yes - as downthread most of what we are hearing is based on experience and research with other Coronaviruses, this one being so new.
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
You can get the full disease from just three virus particles, according to the Newsnight professor. Presumably with one or two, your immune system boots them out without learning from the experience.
There's a reason the smallpox jab doesn't actually contain any smallpox....
The Newsnight professor doesn’t know that. It’s theoretically possible, but for obvious reasons, no one has done the experiment. We simply don’t have much data - and the dose response varies massively from virus to virus. (The New Yorker article I posted below has quite a good discussion of this.)
We don’t even have the ID50 number for test animals. (ID50 - the viral dose which will infect half of test subjects)
Establishing the dose which is likely to infect, but is also significantly less likely to lead to severe disease is an even bigger problem.
Yes, the New Yorker article is very good. It does support her view that there is a link between the size of first infection and severity, and to be fair to the professor she did say "almost certainly".
I’m struggling to see how you would run any kind of experiment on this, though. We’re rather more likely to have a vaccine before anyone works that one out.
On the other hand, this does seem to be a underexplored topic in virology (?), and the unprecedented scientific effort going in to studying this pandemic will throw up interesting results.
Giving measured doses to animals seems to be the approach, from that article.
On a happier note yesterday I really enjoyed my 2 hour whatsapp video call helping my granddaughter with her chemistry. I think I got an A at O level but must confess I had to resort to Google a couple of times. Did you all know the difference between a molecule and a compound? And I dont remember doing chromatography at all.
OK, I’ll risk looking like a fool, but I’ll have a go:
A molecule is a chain of atoms, which may or may not be more of one element; A compound is a molecule made up of at least two elements.
I got a B at GCSE chemistry, so if I’m wrong, we’ll know that 20 years ago grades were a joke.
I got an A so I am well qualified to say you are broadly correct. I wish I had done it at A Level but I was told History, Geography and Chemistry was untimetableable.
I’m glad to see you had your priorities right though!
A level history is a doss.
Okaaaay...
I will agree it’s not as hard as further maths, ordinary maths or physics. I’m curious as to why you think it’s ‘a doss’ and what experience you base that on.
Just a joke, but FWIW my A levels were Maths, Further Maths, Physics and History. 😊 ( I also took politics AS for a laugh)
I understand now. You sound the pinnacle of intellectual awesomeness in your A-level choices.
Another cracking day, reckon I will go up on to Dartmoor looking for...
Ah. Bugger.
*shakes fist at the skies* Damn you, Police Drone of Doom!
Just off out there now to check the welfare of my ponies. I'll let you know if anything interesting happens.
The police do seem to be exercising powers the new legislation does not give them. In England you are entitled to be out of the house if you have a reasonable excuse. That includes taking “exercise alone or with another member of their household”. There is no limit to the number of times you can do this in a day. Nor does it say that the exercise can only be taken outside your home.
So a bit of common-sense is needed. If you have a park or field at the end of your street you can go there to have a walk. If you are in an urban area you can of course simply walk the streets but this may well be risky if you cannot stay 2 metres apart from other people walking the pavements.
So driving a short distance to some outside space to exercise there while keeping a safe distance away from others is both legal and in accordance with health safety guidelines.
Telling people that walking a dog is not essential is nonsense and outside the police’s powers. Walking the dog exercises you and the dog and is both essential and permitted.
People - and this includes the police - need to use a bit of common-sense.
On a happier note yesterday I really enjoyed my 2 hour whatsapp video call helping my granddaughter with her chemistry. I think I got an A at O level but must confess I had to resort to Google a couple of times. Did you all know the difference between a molecule and a compound? And I dont remember doing chromatography at all.
OK, I’ll risk looking like a fool, but I’ll have a go:
A molecule is a chain of atoms, which may or may not be more of one element; A compound is a molecule made up of at least two elements.
I got a B at GCSE chemistry, so if I’m wrong, we’ll know that 20 years ago grades were a joke.
I got an A so I am well qualified to say you are broadly correct. I wish I had done it at A Level but I was told History, Geography and Chemistry was untimetableable.
I’m glad to see you had your priorities right though!
A level history is a doss.
Okaaaay...
I will agree it’s not as hard as further maths, ordinary maths or physics. I’m curious as to why you think it’s ‘a doss’ and what experience you base that on.
It teahces him a lot of lessons he doesn't want to know?
I did say it's the start of a thousand year rule for the Cons.
Far away in an alternative universe, PM Osborne, having taken over last July from PM Cameron, who squeaked his referendum in 2016, is in consultation with Lotto Corbyn and Lib Dem Farron about an emergency delay to the 2020 general election at the end of the five year 2015 Parliament.
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
This was discussed at length here as it happens.
The strong counter-argument put forward is that the virus multiplies so fast, that initial 'viral load' was not material, and a minor one would just quickly multiply into a major one.
I think there's a counter-counter-argument that it's worse to have more areas of the body affected initially (eg both lungs not one) as the virus has more 'bases' to colonise.
Either way, it's interesting to theorise that there's a 'safer' way to infect the body to get an immunity. I was talking about fecal transplant here yesterday, which probably people won't want me to talk about again.
Ah thanks for the explanation.
So does that mean that reports of the amount of virus you initially contract determining the severity of the illness is wrong?
Anecdotally it seems that doctors with no existing medical conditions who are exposed to a lot of the virus are much more likely to die at a young age than anyone else.
It seems there's no agreement on PB or anywhere else on this. Examples of viral load affecting the severity are posted up and down thread. I believe it must affect it, though I understand the argument that fast multiplication makes it less relevant.
There are some great articles posted on this today, thanks to the posters who highlighted them. Hopefully some of the rougher and readier solutions are experimented on in the absence of a conventional vaccine or drug.
None of the above et al. basically until we develop either a vaccine or a true cure, thousands x thousands will die and there will be no end. Peaks may come and go but the virus won't.
Spanish flu ran for 3-4 years. That will be the same with coronavirus until one or other of the above occurs. And if it goes on that long deaths will be counted in the millions.
Globally yes but "people" were predicting millions in the UK, its just not going to happen.
Let's hope not. It's too soon to be pedalling optimism. The storm hasn't even begun here yet. It will soon.
I was chatting to someone in north London last night and she said, and I could hear, the ambulances were going past on blue lights every two minutes.
Every journalist knows that London has a deep, deep, problem and we are about to see a tsunami, as one newspaper (not my own) put it this morning.
Have a good day everyone. And before running myself and Eadric into the ground, consider this. We've been proved right.
G'day.
More BS; neither of you has been right about anything of any specificity.
And both of you are actively enjoying this far more than is decent.
Eadric knocked it out of the park, predictionwise, on this, and for some reason precipitated in you a hissy fit which was funny and is now less so. Usually you flipflop between "he didn't predict it" and "he did predict it, what a doom monger". The suggestion that he or anyone else is enjoying what has already infected posters here and killed their loved ones is new, and plainly just a new attack line you are trying on for size, and thoroughly disgusting. Please do not do it again.
No, he really didn't. I keep telling you to go look, but for some reason you never make the effort.
I don't need to, because I was there at the time. He did, and I made specific decisions based largely on his advice which I would not otherwise have made, which turned out to be good ones.
But even if you are right, could you be right about it somewhere else? Stalk the guy on twitter or something?
How are the trials going here for use of existing drugs to treat the virus?
I read a week or so ago that there were trials using hydroxychloroquine on 2 or 3 patients which seems ridiculously low.
I'd like to see many already approved drugs that could help trialled on patients as much as possible. Yes in ideal times you'd spend years testing these things, but we really don't have the luxury of time at the moment.
The current strategy seems to be to ignore a patient until their symptoms become so severe they need to be put on a ventilator, rather than try and treat them early to stop them needing one.
Standard UK healthcare
Yes the model seems to be to ignore ailments when they are in the early stages and easy to treat and then pull out all the stops at great expense when things get serious.
Sadly, that is the worldwide standard of care. Essentially supportive care with oxygen, fluids etc, while the body fights it's own battle. While there are interesting possibilities for treatment, there is really not much evidence that either antivirals or anti inflammatory drugs such as hydroxychloroquine* make a difference. It is worth noting that toxicity is a real issue. There is a body of thought that the high mortality of Spanish Flu in young people was due in part to excessive doses of the then wonder drug of asprin. Doses of 4 asprin per hour were often used.
*the French study on hydroxychloroquine had 16 in the treatment arm, but only 11 were included in the analysis. 1 died, 3 transferred to ICU and 1 stopped because of side effects. It is rather like me claiming to be a successful political gambler by excluding all my losing bets!
Fever Tree is in short supply round here, so plenty of people self-medicating on quinine.
If TMay hadn’t called the 2017 election, or Cameron not lost the referendum, we would now be having a very heated argument about whether to postpone the FTP election scheduled for this coming May. As it is we are only three months into this Parliament and have yet to reach even the peak of the biggest public health emergency since the cholera outbreaks of the Nineteenth Century. Polling is utterly meaningless right now.
On a happier note yesterday I really enjoyed my 2 hour whatsapp video call helping my granddaughter with her chemistry. I think I got an A at O level but must confess I had to resort to Google a couple of times. Did you all know the difference between a molecule and a compound? And I dont remember doing chromatography at all.
OK, I’ll risk looking like a fool, but I’ll have a go:
A molecule is a chain of atoms, which may or may not be more of one element; A compound is a molecule made up of at least two elements.
I got a B at GCSE chemistry, so if I’m wrong, we’ll know that 20 years ago grades were a joke.
I got an A so I am well qualified to say you are broadly correct. I wish I had done it at A Level but I was told History, Geography and Chemistry was untimetableable.
I’m glad to see you had your priorities right though!
A level history is a doss.
Okaaaay...
I will agree it’s not as hard as further maths, ordinary maths or physics. I’m curious as to why you think it’s ‘a doss’ and what experience you base that on.
Just a joke, but FWIW my A levels were Maths, Further Maths, Physics and History. 😊 ( I also took politics AS for a laugh)
I understand now. You sound the pinnacle of intellectual awesomeness in your A-level choices.
Now AS level politics, that really *is* a doss.
Good fun to teach though.
Passed that through general knowledge, but didn’t get an A. Loved history, but it was hard. Not much overlap with the others. Tudors and European history. Lots of Perkins, Simnels and a Diet of Worms.
On a happier note yesterday I really enjoyed my 2 hour whatsapp video call helping my granddaughter with her chemistry. I think I got an A at O level but must confess I had to resort to Google a couple of times. Did you all know the difference between a molecule and a compound? And I dont remember doing chromatography at all.
OK, I’ll risk looking like a fool, but I’ll have a go:
A molecule is a chain of atoms, which may or may not be more of one element; A compound is a molecule made up of at least two elements.
I got a B at GCSE chemistry, so if I’m wrong, we’ll know that 20 years ago grades were a joke.
I got an A so I am well qualified to say you are broadly correct. I wish I had done it at A Level but I was told History, Geography and Chemistry was untimetableable.
I’m glad to see you had your priorities right though!
I had to choose between chemistry and computer studies at A level and went for the latter. Computer studies was in it's very first year, certainly at our school.
We had a “computer room” in the mid eighties to early nineties when I was at secondary school. I was banned from it as a result of my first ever programme -
10 PRINT Mr Jenkins is a Twat 20 GOTO 10
Not surprised you were banned, it wouldn’t have run. No quotes.
Another cracking day, reckon I will go up on to Dartmoor looking for...
Ah. Bugger.
*shakes fist at the skies* Damn you, Police Drone of Doom!
Yes I normally drive a few miles to nearby fells for a run, almost never see anyone up there, I go with a friend for safety. Now I have to exercise locally, and yesterday was very busy people in large groups and not distancing correctly. Unintended consequences have made my normal safe exercise routine into a more dangerous routine.
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
This was discussed at length here as it happens.
The strong counter-argument put forward is that the virus multiplies so fast, that initial 'viral load' was not material, and a minor one would just quickly multiply into a major one.
I think there's a counter-counter-argument that it's worse to have more areas of the body affected initially (eg both lungs not one) as the virus has more 'bases' to colonise.
Either way, it's interesting to theorise that there's a 'safer' way to infect the body to get an immunity. I was talking about fecal transplant here yesterday, which probably people won't want me to talk about again.
Notwithstanding alternative careful explanations that have been detailed on here, the Professor speaking on Wednesday's Newsnight said the amount of virus you are infected with "almost certainly" affects the battle between the virus and the immune system (22 minutes in)...
Yes, I'd rather believe the medical experts than those working in medical finance.
Personally I am not sure what to believe. The explanations on here made sense to me and the view was supported when I researched the subject further. Against that, the Newsnight Prof's view supports the anecdotal background of healthy doctors dying, and she did say that it was supported by tests on animals.
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
This was discussed at length here as it happens.
The strong counter-argument put forward is that the virus multiplies so fast, that initial 'viral load' was not material, and a minor one would just quickly multiply into a major one.
I think there's a counter-counter-argument that it's worse to have more areas of the body affected initially (eg both lungs not one) as the virus has more 'bases' to colonise.
Either way, it's interesting to theorise that there's a 'safer' way to infect the body to get an immunity. I was talking about fecal transplant here yesterday, which probably people won't want me to talk about again.
Ah thanks for the explanation.
So does that mean that reports of the amount of virus you initially contract determining the severity of the illness is wrong?
Anecdotally it seems that doctors with no existing medical conditions who are exposed to a lot of the virus are much more likely to die at a young age than anyone else.
It seems there's no agreement on PB or anywhere else on this. Examples of viral load affecting the severity are posted up and down thread. I believe it must affect it, though I understand the argument that fast multiplication makes it less relevant.
There are some great articles posted on this today, thanks to the posters who highlighted them. Hopefully some of the rougher and readier solutions are experimented on in the absence of a conventional vaccine or drug.
I think your last sentence highlights the main problem with finding a treatment. Most vaccines were discovered when scientists had no qualms about injecting people with potentially harmful vaccines and cures to see what works or not.
Now they are too worried to even try out existing medications on a large scale, which are already known to be safe.
Maybe the Chinese and Russians will have more luck as they don't have the same ethics when it comes to these things.
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
Alternative idea, perhaps as a thought experiment:
Offer young healthy people (say) £10,000 to be infected with the virus. Increases herd immunity % and releases them 14 days later to work on the front line.
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
This was discussed at length here as it happens.
The strong counter-argument put forward is that the virus multiplies so fast, that initial 'viral load' was not material, and a minor one would just quickly multiply into a major one.
I think there's a counter-counter-argument that it's worse to have more areas of the body affected initially (eg both lungs not one) as the virus has more 'bases' to colonise.
Either way, it's interesting to theorise that there's a 'safer' way to infect the body to get an immunity. I was talking about fecal transplant here yesterday, which probably people won't want me to talk about again.
Ah thanks for the explanation.
So does that mean that reports of the amount of virus you initially contract determining the severity of the illness is wrong?
Anecdotally it seems that doctors with no existing medical conditions who are exposed to a lot of the virus are much more likely to die at a young age than anyone else.
It seems there's no agreement on PB or anywhere else on this. Examples of viral load affecting the severity are posted up and down thread. I believe it must affect it, though I understand the argument that fast multiplication makes it less relevant.
There are some great articles posted on this today, thanks to the posters who highlighted them. Hopefully some of the rougher and readier solutions are experimented on in the absence of a conventional vaccine or drug.
I don't want to get involved in technicalities, but a lot of the argument is about terminology. "Viral load" means how much you have got inside you, and we need another term if there isn't one already for how much and from how many sources you have coming at you from the outside.
None of the above et al. basically until we develop either a vaccine or a true cure, thousands x thousands will die and there will be no end. Peaks may come and go but the virus won't.
Spanish flu ran for 3-4 years. That will be the same with coronavirus until one or other of the above occurs. And if it goes on that long deaths will be counted in the millions.
Globally yes but "people" were predicting millions in the UK, its just not going to happen.
Let's hope not. It's too soon to be pedalling optimism. The storm hasn't even begun here yet. It will soon.
I was chatting to someone in north London last night and she said, and I could hear, the ambulances were going past on blue lights every two minutes.
Every journalist knows that London has a deep, deep, problem and we are about to see a tsunami, as one newspaper (not my own) put it this morning.
Have a good day everyone. And before running myself and Eadric into the ground, consider this. We've been proved right.
G'day.
More BS; neither of you has been right about anything of any specificity.
And both of you are actively enjoying this far more than is decent.
Eadric knocked it out of the park, predictionwise, on this, and for some reason precipitated in you a hissy fit which was funny and is now less so. Usually you flipflop between "he didn't predict it" and "he did predict it, what a doom monger". The suggestion that he or anyone else is enjoying what has already infected posters here and killed their loved ones is new, and plainly just a new attack line you are trying on for size, and thoroughly disgusting. Please do not do it again.
No, he really didn't. I keep telling you to go look, but for some reason you never make the effort.
I don't need to, because I was there at the time. He did, and I made specific decisions based largely on his advice which I would not otherwise have made, which turned out to be good ones.
But even if you are right, could you be right about it somewhere else? Stalk the guy on twitter or something?
If you're going to post BS on this site, it's going to be called out. It's one of the things that puts it above most other internet discussion sites.
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
This was discussed at length here as it happens.
The strong counter-argument put forward is that the virus multiplies so fast, that initial 'viral load' was not material, and a minor one would just quickly multiply into a major one.
I think there's a counter-counter-argument that it's worse to have more areas of the body affected initially (eg both lungs not one) as the virus has more 'bases' to colonise.
Either way, it's interesting to theorise that there's a 'safer' way to infect the body to get an immunity. I was talking about fecal transplant here yesterday, which probably people won't want me to talk about again.
Ah thanks for the explanation.
So does that mean that reports of the amount of virus you initially contract determining the severity of the illness is wrong?
Anecdotally it seems that doctors with no existing medical conditions who are exposed to a lot of the virus are much more likely to die at a young age than anyone else.
It seems there's no agreement on PB or anywhere else on this. Examples of viral load affecting the severity are posted up and down thread. I believe it must affect it, though I understand the argument that fast multiplication makes it less relevant.
There are some great articles posted on this today, thanks to the posters who highlighted them. Hopefully some of the rougher and readier solutions are experimented on in the absence of a conventional vaccine or drug.
I am drawn to the view that if 10 cells are infecting spurting out new virus, that might be managable for the body, whereas several hundred at once could easily overload the system. Especially the idea of it then taking out both lungs.
Another cracking day, reckon I will go up on to Dartmoor looking for...
Ah. Bugger.
*shakes fist at the skies* Damn you, Police Drone of Doom!
Just off out there now to check the welfare of my ponies. I'll let you know if anything interesting happens.
The police do seem to be exercising powers the new legislation does not give them. In England you are entitled to be out of the house if you have a reasonable excuse. That includes taking “exercise alone or with another member of their household”. There is no limit to the number of times you can do this in a day. Nor does it say that the exercise can only be taken outside your home.
So a bit of common-sense is needed. If you have a park or field at the end of your street you can go there to have a walk. If you are in an urban area you can of course simply walk the streets but this may well be risky if you cannot stay 2 metres apart from other people walking the pavements.
So driving a short distance to some outside space to exercise there while keeping a safe distance away from others is both legal and in accordance with health safety guidelines.
Telling people that walking a dog is not essential is nonsense and outside the police’s powers. Walking the dog exercises you and the dog and is both essential and permitted.
People - and this includes the police - need to use a bit of common-sense.
The trouble with that approach is it creates way too many exceptions and loopholes to be policed effectively. It is also basically selfish. In normal times of course your probes and queries would be laudable.
If TMay hadn’t called the 2017 election, or Cameron not lost the referendum, we would now be having a very heated argument about whether to postpone the FTP election scheduled for this coming May. As it is we are only three months into this Parliament and have yet to reach even the peak of the biggest public health emergency since the cholera outbreaks of the Nineteenth Century. Polling is utterly meaningless right now.
Quite. Hundreds of thousands dead and the Tories could deflate like a balloon ( whether they were just following the science or not frankly), get through this “ok”, economy slowly but steadily resumes Boris is walking on water and no deal Brexit will look as threatening as a spring lamb in comparison.
None of the above et al. basically until we develop either a vaccine or a true cure, thousands x thousands will die and there will be no end. Peaks may come and go but the virus won't.
Spanish flu ran for 3-4 years. That will be the same with coronavirus until one or other of the above occurs. And if it goes on that long deaths will be counted in the millions.
Globally yes but "people" were predicting millions in the UK, its just not going to happen.
Let's hope not. It's too soon to be pedalling optimism. The storm hasn't even begun here yet. It will soon.
I was chatting to someone in north London last night and she said, and I could hear, the ambulances were going past on blue lights every two minutes.
Every journalist knows that London has a deep, deep, problem and we are about to see a tsunami, as one newspaper (not my own) put it this morning.
Have a good day everyone. And before running myself and Eadric into the ground, consider this. We've been proved right.
G'day.
More BS; neither of you has been right about anything of any specificity.
And both of you are actively enjoying this far more than is decent.
Eadric knocked it out of the park, predictionwise, on this, and for some reason precipitated in you a hissy fit which was funny and is now less so. Usually you flipflop between "he didn't predict it" and "he did predict it, what a doom monger". The suggestion that he or anyone else is enjoying what has already infected posters here and killed their loved ones is new, and plainly just a new attack line you are trying on for size, and thoroughly disgusting. Please do not do it again.
No, he really didn't. I keep telling you to go look, but for some reason you never make the effort.
I don't need to, because I was there at the time. He did, and I made specific decisions based largely on his advice which I would not otherwise have made, which turned out to be good ones.
But even if you are right, could you be right about it somewhere else? Stalk the guy on twitter or something?
If you're going to post BS on this site, it's going to be called out. It's one of the things that puts it above most other internet discussion sites.
That is no excuse for repurposing it as a safe space to explore your inner butthurt.
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
This was discussed at length here as it happens.
The strong counter-argument put forward is that the virus multiplies so fast, that initial 'viral load' was not material, and a minor one would just quickly multiply into a major one.
I think there's a counter-counter-argument that it's worse to have more areas of the body affected initially (eg both lungs not one) as the virus has more 'bases' to colonise.
Either way, it's interesting to theorise that there's a 'safer' way to infect the body to get an immunity. I was talking about fecal transplant here yesterday, which probably people won't want me to talk about again.
Ah thanks for the explanation.
So does that mean that reports of the amount of virus you initially contract determining the severity of the illness is wrong?
Anecdotally it seems that doctors with no existing medical conditions who are exposed to a lot of the virus are much more likely to die at a young age than anyone else.
It seems there's no agreement on PB or anywhere else on this. Examples of viral load affecting the severity are posted up and down thread. I believe it must affect it, though I understand the argument that fast multiplication makes it less relevant.
There are some great articles posted on this today, thanks to the posters who highlighted them. Hopefully some of the rougher and readier solutions are experimented on in the absence of a conventional vaccine or drug.
I don't want to get involved in technicalities, but a lot of the argument is about terminology. "Viral load" means how much you have got inside you, and we need another term if there isn't one already for how much and from how many sources you have coming at you from the outside.
Another cracking day, reckon I will go up on to Dartmoor looking for...
Ah. Bugger.
*shakes fist at the skies* Damn you, Police Drone of Doom!
Yes I normally drive a few miles to nearby fells for a run, almost never see anyone up there, I go with a friend for safety. Now I have to exercise locally, and yesterday was very busy people in large groups and not distancing correctly. Unintended consequences have made my normal safe exercise routine into a more dangerous routine.
Lots of people taking up new hobbies.
The problem is when everyone has the same bright idea at the same time. Such as, it will be really nice to go for a long walk in the Lakes... etc.
Another cracking day, reckon I will go up on to Dartmoor looking for...
Ah. Bugger.
*shakes fist at the skies* Damn you, Police Drone of Doom!
Yes I normally drive a few miles to nearby fells for a run, almost never see anyone up there, I go with a friend for safety. Now I have to exercise locally, and yesterday was very busy people in large groups and not distancing correctly. Unintended consequences have made my normal safe exercise routine into a more dangerous routine.
I really don't understand the logic behind preventing people driving somewhere remote to exercise. Getting in and out of the car happens alone and you're completely isolated in the car.
I see photos of people in traffic jams on twitter with the caption saying how reckless they are and I'm wondering why exactly. There's absolutely no chance of passing on this virus in a traffic jam.
It only matters if everyone drives to the same place and it becomes more crowded than exercising locally, which judging by the crowds in local walks here is unlikely to be the case.
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
This was discussed at length here as it happens.
The strong counter-argument put forward is that the virus multiplies so fast, that initial 'viral load' was not material, and a minor one would just quickly multiply into a major one.
I think there's a counter-counter-argument that it's worse to have more areas of the body affected initially (eg both lungs not one) as the virus has more 'bases' to colonise.
Either way, it's interesting to theorise that there's a 'safer' way to infect the body to get an immunity. I was talking about fecal transplant here yesterday, which probably people won't want me to talk about again.
Ah thanks for the explanation.
So does that mean that reports of the amount of virus you initially contract determining the severity of the illness is wrong?
Anecdotally it seems that doctors with no existing medical conditions who are exposed to a lot of the virus are much more likely to die at a young age than anyone else.
It seems there's no agreement on PB or anywhere else on this. Examples of viral load affecting the severity are posted up and down thread. I believe it must affect it, though I understand the argument that fast multiplication makes it less relevant.
There are some great articles posted on this today, thanks to the posters who highlighted them. Hopefully some of the rougher and readier solutions are experimented on in the absence of a conventional vaccine or drug.
I am drawn to the view that if 10 cells are infecting spurting out new virus, that might be managable for the body, whereas several hundred at once could easily overload the system. Especially the idea of it then taking out both lungs.
I agree, but if those cells are grouped together, the one cell will just catch them up by infecting its neighbours. However, if as I said, you get multiple 'bits of you' exposed to and colonised by the virus, it would seem illogical that you wouldn't be in a much worse position than with just one.
I did say it's the start of a thousand year rule for the Cons.
Johnson (if he lives) will go for a snap post-corona election.
Why on earth would he do that??
He’s got a majority of 80 and he’s three months in. If we get through this ok he’s even got the “I’m good in a mega crisis not the flaky joker I’ve been portrayed as” card.
Anyway it’s all back burner now. We need to all muck in and save as many lives as we can.
Another cracking day, reckon I will go up on to Dartmoor looking for...
Ah. Bugger.
*shakes fist at the skies* Damn you, Police Drone of Doom!
Yes I normally drive a few miles to nearby fells for a run, almost never see anyone up there, I go with a friend for safety. Now I have to exercise locally, and yesterday was very busy people in large groups and not distancing correctly. Unintended consequences have made my normal safe exercise routine into a more dangerous routine.
I really don't understand the logic behind preventing people driving somewhere remote to exercise. Getting in and out of the car happens alone and you're completely isolated in the car.
I see photos of people in traffic jams on twitter with the caption saying how reckless they are and I'm wondering why exactly. There's absolutely no chance of passing on this virus in a traffic jam.
It only matters if everyone drives to the same place and it becomes more crowded than exercising locally, which judging by the crowds in local walks here is unlikely to be the case.
Maybe the traffic jams are the clue you're not quite understanding.
Another cracking day, reckon I will go up on to Dartmoor looking for...
Ah. Bugger.
*shakes fist at the skies* Damn you, Police Drone of Doom!
Yes I normally drive a few miles to nearby fells for a run, almost never see anyone up there, I go with a friend for safety. Now I have to exercise locally, and yesterday was very busy people in large groups and not distancing correctly. Unintended consequences have made my normal safe exercise routine into a more dangerous routine.
I really don't understand the logic behind preventing people driving somewhere remote to exercise. Getting in and out of the car happens alone and you're completely isolated in the car.
I see photos of people in traffic jams on twitter with the caption saying how reckless they are and I'm wondering why exactly. There's absolutely no chance of passing on this virus in a traffic jam.
It only matters if everyone drives to the same place and it becomes more crowded than exercising locally, which judging by the crowds in local walks here is unlikely to be the case.
It’s liable to abuse and as you say big crowds in key locations.
Another cracking day, reckon I will go up on to Dartmoor looking for...
Ah. Bugger.
*shakes fist at the skies* Damn you, Police Drone of Doom!
Just off out there now to check the welfare of my ponies. I'll let you know if anything interesting happens.
That includes taking “exercise alone or with another member of their household”. There is no limit to the number of times you can do this in a day. Nor does it say that the exercise can only be taken outside your home.
I am curious about where you saw that?
"one form of exercise a day, for example a run, walk, or cycle - alone or with members of your household."
I did say it's the start of a thousand year rule for the Cons.
Johnson (if he lives) will go for a snap post-corona election.
What’s the point of doing that? To extend his ministry by, what, six months tops? He’s got four and three quarter years left.
I’m not sure it’s guaranteed the electorate would thank him for the fourth election (fifth if your count the referendum) in just over five years, just as the country is recovering from this. Could even be Churchill 1945.
I did say it's the start of a thousand year rule for the Cons.
Johnson (if he lives) will go for a snap post-corona election.
What’s the point of doing that? To extend his ministry by, what, six months tops? He’s got four and three quarter years left.
I’m not sure it’s guaranteed the electorate would thank him for the fourth election (fifth if your count the referendum) in just over five years, just as the country is recovering from this. Could even be Churchill 1945.
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
This was discussed at length here as it happens.
The strong counter-argument put forward is that the virus multiplies so fast, that initial 'viral load' was not material, and a minor one would just quickly multiply into a major one.
I think there's a counter-counter-argument that it's worse to have more areas of the body affected initially (eg both lungs not one) as the virus has more 'bases' to colonise.
Either way, it's interesting to theorise that there's a 'safer' way to infect the body to get an immunity. I was talking about fecal transplant here yesterday, which probably people won't want me to talk about again.
Ah thanks for the explanation.
So does that mean that reports of the amount of virus you initially contract determining the severity of the illness is wrong?
Anecdotally it seems that doctors with no existing medical conditions who are exposed to a lot of the virus are much more likely to die at a young age than anyone else.
It seems there's no agreement on PB or anywhere else on this. Examples of viral load affecting the severity are posted up and down thread. I believe it must affect it, though I understand the argument that fast multiplication makes it less relevant.
There are some great articles posted on this today, thanks to the posters who highlighted them. Hopefully some of the rougher and readier solutions are experimented on in the absence of a conventional vaccine or drug.
I think your last sentence highlights the main problem with finding a treatment. Most vaccines were discovered when scientists had no qualms about injecting people with potentially harmful vaccines and cures to see what works or not.
Now they are too worried to even try out existing medications on a large scale, which are already known to be safe.
Maybe the Chinese and Russians will have more luck as they don't have the same ethics when it comes to these things.
Well yes. The particular trouble is with infecting the healthy. If someone is very ill it's acceptable to take a punt on a new treatment, and they would welcome it. Infecting the healthy is different.
But the reward is that you then have a potential immediate treatment for other outbreaks in the future.
Stupid question, but I read that the severity of the symptoms depends on amount of virus that is initially contracted, so wouldn't giving people a small amount of the virus be like a type of "vaccine" where their body can fight it off without causing too much harm?
This was discussed at length here as it happens.
The strong counter-argument put forward is that the virus multiplies so fast, that initial 'viral load' was not material, and a minor one would just quickly multiply into a major one.
I think there's a counter-counter-argument that it's worse to have more areas of the body affected initially (eg both lungs not one) as the virus has more 'bases' to colonise.
Either way, it's interesting to theorise that there's a 'safer' way to infect the body to get an immunity. I was talking about fecal transplant here yesterday, which probably people won't want me to talk about again.
Ah thanks for the explanation.
So does that mean that reports of the amount of virus you initially contract determining the severity of the illness is wrong?
Anecdotally it seems that doctors with no existing medical conditions who are exposed to a lot of the virus are much more likely to die at a young age than anyone else.
It seems there's no agreement on PB or anywhere else on this. Examples of viral load affecting the severity are posted up and down thread. I believe it must affect it, though I understand the argument that fast multiplication makes it less relevant.
There are some great articles posted on this today, thanks to the posters who highlighted them. Hopefully some of the rougher and readier solutions are experimented on in the absence of a conventional vaccine or drug.
I don't want to get involved in technicalities, but a lot of the argument is about terminology. "Viral load" means how much you have got inside you, and we need another term if there isn't one already for how much and from how many sources you have coming at you from the outside.
If TMay hadn’t called the 2017 election, or Cameron not lost the referendum, we would now be having a very heated argument about whether to postpone the FTP election scheduled for this coming May. As it is we are only three months into this Parliament and have yet to reach even the peak of the biggest public health emergency since the cholera outbreaks of the Nineteenth Century. Polling is utterly meaningless right now.
Quite. Hundreds of thousands dead and the Tories could deflate like a balloon ( whether they were just following the science or not frankly), get through this “ok”, economy slowly but steadily resumes Boris is walking on water and no deal Brexit will look as threatening as a spring lamb in comparison.
It’s all meaningless right now.
Equally, the experts saying we came out of this with less than 10,000 "extra" deaths and an economy largely preserved is going to be something the Govt. can rightly expect some credit for implementing.
Especially if by comparison, it rips the USA apart.
Boris having had it certainly helps his "I share your pain" schtick.
I did say it's the start of a thousand year rule for the Cons.
Johnson (if he lives) will go for a snap post-corona election.
SKS is an unknown quantity here. I can very easily see him turning into a national benevolent uncle figure and scooping the pool if johnson starts to look flaky for any reason.
If TMay hadn’t called the 2017 election, or Cameron not lost the referendum, we would now be having a very heated argument about whether to postpone the FTP election scheduled for this coming May. As it is we are only three months into this Parliament and have yet to reach even the peak of the biggest public health emergency since the cholera outbreaks of the Nineteenth Century. Polling is utterly meaningless right now.
Quite. Hundreds of thousands dead and the Tories could deflate like a balloon ( whether they were just following the science or not frankly), get through this “ok”, economy slowly but steadily resumes Boris is walking on water and no deal Brexit will look as threatening as a spring lamb in comparison.
It’s all meaningless right now.
Equally, the experts saying we came out of this with less than 10,000 "extra" deaths and an economy largely preserved is going to be something the Govt. can rightly expect some credit for implementing.
Especially if by comparison, it rips the USA apart.
Boris having had it certainly helps his "I share your pain" schtick.
Sure but you sure as hell ain’t going to risk a campaign cock up with four plus years to go and a huge majority are you?
Another cracking day, reckon I will go up on to Dartmoor looking for...
Ah. Bugger.
*shakes fist at the skies* Damn you, Police Drone of Doom!
Just off out there now to check the welfare of my ponies. I'll let you know if anything interesting happens.
The police do seem to be exercising powers the new legislation does not give them. In England you are entitled to be out of the house if you have a reasonable excuse. That includes taking “exercise alone or with another member of their household”. There is no limit to the number of times you can do this in a day. Nor does it say that the exercise can only be taken outside your home.
So a bit of common-sense is needed. If you have a park or field at the end of your street you can go there to have a walk. If you are in an urban area you can of course simply walk the streets but this may well be risky if you cannot stay 2 metres apart from other people walking the pavements.
So driving a short distance to some outside space to exercise there while keeping a safe distance away from others is both legal and in accordance with health safety guidelines.
Telling people that walking a dog is not essential is nonsense and outside the police’s powers. Walking the dog exercises you and the dog and is both essential and permitted.
People - and this includes the police - need to use a bit of common-sense.
The trouble with that approach is it creates way too many exceptions and loopholes to be policed effectively. It is also basically selfish. In normal times of course your probes and queries would be laudable.
I am not going outside beyond the garden.
It doesn’t make it difficult if the police act reasonably. Even in an emergency the police are obliged to obey the laws specifically put in place for the emergency’s duration.And the emergency laws do permit people to go outside for exercise. That exercise should be taken in accordance with the health guidelines. Jogging close to someone outside your home is stupid. Jogging a mile away in an empty space is not. Walking your dog in a lonely spot miles from other people is both reasonable and lawful and the police have no business shaming you or telling you not to.
It's easy to be critical of the government response, especially looking back in hindsight, but it was a logical and scientific response. Using evidence from previous viral pandemics it was multi-layered, and as more evidence emerged, they changed tack.
Start with contact-tracing to shut it down early. When that didn't happen, move on to restrictions to avoid the NHS being overwhelmed, guided all the time by medical and scientific experts using their judgement.
They might be wrong, but it's defensible. This is a new virus and some people (especially the media) hate uncertainty. But it's part of science.
I once had a telephone query where someone asked me if I could guarantee 100% that they wouldn't be affected adversely by an event a couple of miles away. "I can't guarantee 100% that the world won't end in the next ten minutes," was my reply.
I suspect I was never very good at this sort of thing. I once did a radio interview with Radio Norfolk (yes, there really is one), and I decided not to listen to it when it came out. I probably only made things worse.
The Whitty/Vallamce/Harris trio were perfect. They remained courteous in the face of some gormless questions. BoJo will be pleased, and I'm not surpried the Tories' ratings have gone up.
If TMay hadn’t called the 2017 election, or Cameron not lost the referendum, we would now be having a very heated argument about whether to postpone the FTP election scheduled for this coming May. As it is we are only three months into this Parliament and have yet to reach even the peak of the biggest public health emergency since the cholera outbreaks of the Nineteenth Century. Polling is utterly meaningless right now.
Quite. Hundreds of thousands dead and the Tories could deflate like a balloon ( whether they were just following the science or not frankly), get through this “ok”, economy slowly but steadily resumes Boris is walking on water and no deal Brexit will look as threatening as a spring lamb in comparison.
It’s all meaningless right now.
Equally, the experts saying we came out of this with less than 10,000 "extra" deaths and an economy largely preserved is going to be something the Govt. can rightly expect some credit for implementing.
Especially if by comparison, it rips the USA apart.
Boris having had it certainly helps his "I share your pain" schtick.
I agree that the Government may well come out of this with great credit, and I say that as someone who loathes Boris, and God knows compared to the US its response has been exemplary (a very low bar). But the possible downside of an election (an unexpected loss) far outweighs the upside (being in power for a few months beyond Dec 2024). Going to the country seeking gratitude, or campaigning on one issue, or one person, is something that can bite one quite hard in the backside.
I did say it's the start of a thousand year rule for the Cons.
Johnson (if he lives) will go for a snap post-corona election.
SKS is an unknown quantity here. I can very easily see him turning into a national benevolent uncle figure and scooping the pool if johnson starts to look flaky for any reason.
It is easy to be popular while spending money like a drunken sailor. Whether he can hold that popularity when the bills are due is another matter indeed.
Similarly, the government's popularity is because all other aspects of government, including Brexit, have disappeared from the news, and the approach to the pandemic is essentially bipartisan. Once again that won't last when the all clear sounds.
Polling really is meaningless in the current context.
I did say it's the start of a thousand year rule for the Cons.
Johnson (if he lives) will go for a snap post-corona election.
SKS is an unknown quantity here. I can very easily see him turning into a national benevolent uncle figure and scooping the pool if johnson starts to look flaky for any reason.
It is easy to be popular while spending money like a drunken sailor. Whether he can hold that popularity when the bills are due is another matter indeed.
Similarly, the government's popularity is because all other aspects of government, including Brexit, have disappeared from the news, and the approach to the pandemic is essentially bipartisan. Once again that won't last when the all clear sounds.
Polling really is meaningless in the current context.
SKS - Starmer, not Sunak (whose fortunes I think are tied to Johnson's).
Another cracking day, reckon I will go up on to Dartmoor looking for...
Ah. Bugger.
*shakes fist at the skies* Damn you, Police Drone of Doom!
Just off out there now to check the welfare of my ponies. I'll let you know if anything interesting happens.
The police do seem to be exercising powers the new legislation does not give them. In England you are entitled to be out of the house if you have a reasonable excuse. That includes taking “exercise alone or with another member of their household”. There is no limit to the number of times you can do this in a day. Nor does it say that the exercise can only be taken outside your home.
So a bit of common-sense is needed. If you have a park or field at the end of your street you can go there to have a walk. If you are in an urban area you can of course simply walk the streets but this may well be risky if you cannot stay 2 metres apart from other people walking the pavements.
So driving a short distance to some outside space to exercise there while keeping a safe distance away from others is both legal and in accordance with health safety guidelines.
Telling people that walking a dog is not essential is nonsense and outside the police’s powers. Walking the dog exercises you and the dog and is both essential and permitted.
People - and this includes the police - need to use a bit of common-sense.
The trouble with that approach is it creates way too many exceptions and loopholes to be policed effectively. It is also basically selfish. In normal times of course your probes and queries would be laudable.
I am not going outside beyond the garden.
It doesn’t make it difficult if the police act reasonably. Even in an emergency the police are obliged to obey the laws specifically put in place for the emergency’s duration.And the emergency laws do permit people to go outside for exercise. That exercise should be taken in accordance with the health guidelines. Jogging close to someone outside your home is stupid. Jogging a mile away in an empty space is not. Walking your dog in a lonely spot miles from other people is both reasonable and lawful and the police have no business shaming you or telling you not to.
Some of these are things that are only reasonable if a few people do them. If everyone goes for long country walks the popular footpaths would be full of walkers, defeating the purpose.
You are right however that there is nothing I can see in the legislation that limits how often you go out for shopping or exercise. I was questioned in the park yesterday while walking my dog by a Community Policeman eager to impress on me that this counted as my single daily walk. Which reflects government advice, but not its powers AFAICS.
Another cracking day, reckon I will go up on to Dartmoor looking for...
Ah. Bugger.
*shakes fist at the skies* Damn you, Police Drone of Doom!
Yes I normally drive a few miles to nearby fells for a run, almost never see anyone up there, I go with a friend for safety. Now I have to exercise locally, and yesterday was very busy people in large groups and not distancing correctly. Unintended consequences have made my normal safe exercise routine into a more dangerous routine.
I really don't understand the logic behind preventing people driving somewhere remote to exercise. Getting in and out of the car happens alone and you're completely isolated in the car.
I see photos of people in traffic jams on twitter with the caption saying how reckless they are and I'm wondering why exactly. There's absolutely no chance of passing on this virus in a traffic jam.
It only matters if everyone drives to the same place and it becomes more crowded than exercising locally, which judging by the crowds in local walks here is unlikely to be the case.
It’s liable to abuse and as you say big crowds in key locations.
There are already crowds locally for walks though, my daily dog walk has gone from seeing 1 or 2 people normally, to seeing up to 100 each time.
Everyone is going to places in walking distance from where they live at the same times.
If TMay hadn’t called the 2017 election, or Cameron not lost the referendum, we would now be having a very heated argument about whether to postpone the FTP election scheduled for this coming May. As it is we are only three months into this Parliament and have yet to reach even the peak of the biggest public health emergency since the cholera outbreaks of the Nineteenth Century. Polling is utterly meaningless right now.
Quite. Hundreds of thousands dead and the Tories could deflate like a balloon ( whether they were just following the science or not frankly), get through this “ok”, economy slowly but steadily resumes Boris is walking on water and no deal Brexit will look as threatening as a spring lamb in comparison.
It’s all meaningless right now.
Equally, the experts saying we came out of this with less than 10,000 "extra" deaths and an economy largely preserved is going to be something the Govt. can rightly expect some credit for implementing.
Especially if by comparison, it rips the USA apart.
Boris having had it certainly helps his "I share your pain" schtick.
Sure but you sure as hell ain’t going to risk a campaign cock up with four plus years to go and a huge majority are you?
My point exactly, just put more succinctly. You can tell I’m a lawyer.
Another cracking day, reckon I will go up on to Dartmoor looking for...
Ah. Bugger.
*shakes fist at the skies* Damn you, Police Drone of Doom!
Just off out there now to check the welfare of my ponies. I'll let you know if anything interesting happens.
That includes taking “exercise alone or with another member of their household”. There is no limit to the number of times you can do this in a day. Nor does it say that the exercise can only be taken outside your home.
I am curious about where you saw that?
"one form of exercise a day, for example a run, walk, or cycle - alone or with members of your household."
If TMay hadn’t called the 2017 election, or Cameron not lost the referendum, we would now be having a very heated argument about whether to postpone the FTP election scheduled for this coming May. As it is we are only three months into this Parliament and have yet to reach even the peak of the biggest public health emergency since the cholera outbreaks of the Nineteenth Century. Polling is utterly meaningless right now.
Quite. Hundreds of thousands dead and the Tories could deflate like a balloon ( whether they were just following the science or not frankly), get through this “ok”, economy slowly but steadily resumes Boris is walking on water and no deal Brexit will look as threatening as a spring lamb in comparison.
It’s all meaningless right now.
Equally, the experts saying we came out of this with less than 10,000 "extra" deaths and an economy largely preserved is going to be something the Govt. can rightly expect some credit for implementing.
Especially if by comparison, it rips the USA apart.
Boris having had it certainly helps his "I share your pain" schtick.
Comments
The strong counter-argument put forward is that the virus multiplies so fast, that initial 'viral load' was not material, and a minor one would just quickly multiply into a major one.
I think there's a counter-counter-argument that it's worse to have more areas of the body affected initially (eg both lungs not one) as the virus has more 'bases' to colonise.
Either way, it's interesting to theorise that there's a 'safer' way to infect the body to get an immunity. I was talking about fecal transplant here yesterday, which probably people won't want me to talk about again.
He never misses an opportunity to screw virgins.
Nevertheless infection rates in China outside of Hubei are almost certainly very low and much lower than Europe including the UK. Reasons for thinking this are:
- The very rigorous containment measures in place;
- The highly developed Chinese bush telegraph really isn't coming up with a load of deaths and people with symptoms, outwith Hubei. If there were we would almost certainly know about them. Hubei is a different kettle of fish; there's plenty of anecdotal evidence from there;
- if there's an outbreak in Guangdong province in particular, it would spill over into Hong Kong. It hasn't
Ah. Bugger.
*shakes fist at the skies* Damn you, Police Drone of Doom!
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1243594905181708288?s=09
And tbf Eadric didn't predict it, they were downplaying it at the beginning of February when it was obvious that it was very serious and then switched to the "a quarter of you are going to die" doom mongering, so in that Ianb2 is right.
And I'm sorry to say that I also had the impression that Eadric enjoys it occasionally.
But there seem to be 2 Eadrics, often they are quite reasonable.
Not the original pathogen, for fairly obvious reasons.
I will agree it’s not as hard as further maths, ordinary maths or physics. I’m curious as to why you think it’s ‘a doss’ and what experience you base that on.
So does that mean that reports of the amount of virus you initially contract determining the severity of the illness is wrong?
Anecdotally it seems that doctors with no existing medical conditions who are exposed to a lot of the virus are much more likely to die at a young age than anyone else.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000gp8d/newsnight-26032020
https://twitter.com/abbottnews/status/1243680163054915584?s=21
( I also took politics AS for a laugh)
We simply don’t have much data - and the dose response varies massively from virus to virus. (The New Yorker article I posted below has quite a good discussion of this.)
We don’t even have the ID50 number for test animals.
(ID50 - the viral dose which will infect half of test subjects)
Establishing the dose which is likely to infect, but is also significantly less likely to lead to severe disease is an even bigger problem.
We’re rather more likely to have a vaccine before anyone works that one out.
On the other hand, this does seem to be a underexplored topic in virology (?), and the unprecedented scientific effort going in to studying this pandemic will throw up interesting results.
10 PRINT Mr Jenkins is a Twat
20 GOTO 10
Essentially supportive care with oxygen, fluids etc, while the body fights it's own battle. While there are interesting possibilities for treatment, there is really not much evidence that either antivirals or anti inflammatory drugs such as hydroxychloroquine* make a difference. It is worth noting that toxicity is a real issue. There is a body of thought that the high mortality of Spanish Flu in young people was due in part to excessive doses of the then wonder drug of asprin. Doses of 4 asprin per hour were often used.
*the French study on hydroxychloroquine had 16 in the treatment arm, but only 11 were included in the analysis. 1 died, 3 transferred to ICU and 1 stopped because of side effects. It is rather like me claiming to be a successful political gambler by excluding all my losing bets!
Now AS level politics, that really *is* a doss.
Good fun to teach though.
So a bit of common-sense is needed. If you have a park or field at the end of your street you can go there to have a walk. If you are in an urban area you can of course simply walk the streets but this may well be risky if you cannot stay 2 metres apart from other people walking the pavements.
So driving a short distance to some outside space to exercise there while keeping a safe distance away from others is both legal and in accordance with health safety guidelines.
Telling people that walking a dog is not essential is nonsense and outside the police’s powers. Walking the dog exercises you and the dog and is both essential and permitted.
People - and this includes the police - need to use a bit of common-sense.
There are some great articles posted on this today, thanks to the posters who highlighted them. Hopefully some of the rougher and readier solutions are experimented on in the absence of a conventional vaccine or drug.
is that an essential journey?
But even if you are right, could you be right about it somewhere else? Stalk the guy on twitter or something?
Unintended consequences have made my normal safe exercise routine into a more dangerous routine.
Now they are too worried to even try out existing medications on a large scale, which are already known to be safe.
Maybe the Chinese and Russians will have more luck as they don't have the same ethics when it comes to these things.
Offer young healthy people (say) £10,000 to be infected with the virus. Increases herd immunity % and releases them 14 days later to work on the front line.
(yes "first do no harm" I know)
It’s all meaningless right now.
The problem is when everyone has the same bright idea at the same time. Such as, it will be really nice to go for a long walk in the Lakes... etc.
I see photos of people in traffic jams on twitter with the caption saying how reckless they are and I'm wondering why exactly. There's absolutely no chance of passing on this virus in a traffic jam.
It only matters if everyone drives to the same place and it becomes more crowded than exercising locally, which judging by the crowds in local walks here is unlikely to be the case.
He’s got a majority of 80 and he’s three months in. If we get through this ok he’s even got the “I’m good in a mega crisis not the flaky joker I’ve been portrayed as” card.
Anyway it’s all back burner now. We need to all muck in and save as many lives as we can.
"one form of exercise a day, for example a run, walk, or cycle - alone or with members of your household."
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/full-guidance-on-staying-at-home-and-away-from-others/full-guidance-on-staying-at-home-and-away-from-others
I’m not sure it’s guaranteed the electorate would thank him for the fourth election (fifth if your count the referendum) in just over five years, just as the country is recovering from this. Could even be Churchill 1945.
But the reward is that you then have a potential immediate treatment for other outbreaks in the future.
Especially if by comparison, it rips the USA apart.
Boris having had it certainly helps his "I share your pain" schtick.
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/49/9/1405/301441
It doesn’t make it difficult if the police act reasonably. Even in an emergency the police are obliged to obey the laws specifically put in place for the emergency’s duration.And the emergency laws do permit people to go outside for exercise. That exercise should be taken in accordance with the health guidelines. Jogging close to someone outside your home is stupid. Jogging a mile away in an empty space is not. Walking your dog in a lonely spot miles from other people is both reasonable and lawful and the police have no business shaming you or telling you not to.
Start with contact-tracing to shut it down early. When that didn't happen, move on to restrictions to avoid the NHS being overwhelmed, guided all the time by medical and scientific experts using their judgement.
They might be wrong, but it's defensible. This is a new virus and some people (especially the media) hate uncertainty. But it's part of science.
I once had a telephone query where someone asked me if I could guarantee 100% that they wouldn't be affected adversely by an event a couple of miles away. "I can't guarantee 100% that the world won't end in the next ten minutes," was my reply.
I suspect I was never very good at this sort of thing. I once did a radio interview with Radio Norfolk (yes, there really is one), and I decided not to listen to it when it came out. I probably only made things worse.
The Whitty/Vallamce/Harris trio were perfect. They remained courteous in the face of some gormless questions. BoJo will be pleased, and I'm not surpried the Tories' ratings have gone up.
Similarly, the government's popularity is because all other aspects of government, including Brexit, have disappeared from the news, and the approach to the pandemic is essentially bipartisan. Once again that won't last when the all clear sounds.
Polling really is meaningless in the current context.
You are right however that there is nothing I can see in the legislation that limits how often you go out for shopping or exercise. I was questioned in the park yesterday while walking my dog by a Community Policeman eager to impress on me that this counted as my single daily walk. Which reflects government advice, but not its powers AFAICS.
Everyone is going to places in walking distance from where they live at the same times.
The precise wording is:
“(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) a reasonable excuse includes the need-
......
(b) To take exercise alone or with other members of your household;”.
Note that it says “household” not “family”. So flat sharers can exercise together.