The SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain elicits a potent neutralizing response without antibody-dependent enhancement https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.036418v1 The SARS-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike (S) protein mediates entry of SARS-CoV-2 into cells expressing the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). The S protein engages ACE2 through its receptor-binding domain (RBD), an independently folded 197-amino acid fragment of the 1273-amino acid S-protein protomer. Antibodies to the RBD domain of SARS-CoV (SARS-CoV-1), a closely related coronavirus which emerged in 2002-2003, have been shown to potently neutralize SARS-CoV-1 S-protein-mediated entry, and the presence of anti-RBD antibodies correlates with neutralization in SARS-CoV-2 convalescent sera. Here we show that immunization with the SARS-CoV-2 RBD elicits a robust neutralizing antibody response in rodents, comparable to 100 µg/ml of ACE2-Ig, a potent SARS-CoV-2 entry inhibitor. Importantly, anti-sera from immunized animals did not mediate antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of S-protein-mediated entry under conditions in which Zika virus ADE was readily observed. These data suggest that an RBD-based vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 could be safe and effective.
Farzan, the lead author on the paper just gave an online lecture from the Scripps Institute (one of the leading US research centres.
Interesting listening... Very optimistic about an effective vaccine: If HIV is a genius, and flu is an honours student... SARS-CoV-2 flunked immunology 101...
From about 8 mins in. www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjc1EIMQIwA
SARS-CoV-2 must have been in the same class as Robert Peston. They are both f##king annoying and too much exposure is very bad for your health.
The SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain elicits a potent neutralizing response without antibody-dependent enhancement https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.036418v1 The SARS-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike (S) protein mediates entry of SARS-CoV-2 into cells expressing the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). The S protein engages ACE2 through its receptor-binding domain (RBD), an independently folded 197-amino acid fragment of the 1273-amino acid S-protein protomer. Antibodies to the RBD domain of SARS-CoV (SARS-CoV-1), a closely related coronavirus which emerged in 2002-2003, have been shown to potently neutralize SARS-CoV-1 S-protein-mediated entry, and the presence of anti-RBD antibodies correlates with neutralization in SARS-CoV-2 convalescent sera. Here we show that immunization with the SARS-CoV-2 RBD elicits a robust neutralizing antibody response in rodents, comparable to 100 µg/ml of ACE2-Ig, a potent SARS-CoV-2 entry inhibitor. Importantly, anti-sera from immunized animals did not mediate antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of S-protein-mediated entry under conditions in which Zika virus ADE was readily observed. These data suggest that an RBD-based vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 could be safe and effective.
Farzan, the lead author on the paper just gave an online lecture from the Scripps Institute (one of the leading US research centres.
Interesting listening... Very optimistic about an effective vaccine: If HIV is a genius, and flu is an honours student... SARS-CoV-2 flunked immunology 101...
Those of us who really don't want to get ill will have no choice but to stay well clear. No restaurants, pubs, sports grounds, cinemas etc because you know that significant numbers of people you will be with can't be trusted to have behaved responsibly. That is why I expect the economy will remain trashed for a very long time whatever action is taken
One thing that would be useful to think about is: What's the effect on the economy of closing anywhere with a confined, badly-ventilated space where people gather for the foreseeable future? Restaurants, pubs, cinemas, some offices depending on layout - that's a non-trivial proportion of the economy, but also not an overwhelming one.
Not just restaurants, pubs, cinemas and some offices but cafes, clubs, theatres, museums, galleries, shops, hotels, B&B’s - essentially anywhere that isn’t a private home. That’s a pretty significant proportion of the economy.
Even the Guardian aren't prominently featuring Labour dodgy dossier full of Trotter Independent Traders.
News at Ten featured a guy with a warehouse full of PPE that the government didn't want to buy.
R4 World Tonight led on care home deaths. And finally had someone pointing out the folly of discharging sick patients into care.
Sorry for dampening the mood.
You are the last person who needs to apologise for this Nigel. Your piece a couple of days ago should be compulsory reading for all decision makers.
I suspect that - when we look back at this in a year's time - what will distinguish the successful countries from the unsuccessful ones will be the ability to keep CV-19 away from extremely vulbnerable populations like nursing homes.
Those of us who really don't want to get ill will have no choice but to stay well clear. No restaurants, pubs, sports grounds, cinemas etc because you know that significant numbers of people you will be with can't be trusted to have behaved responsibly. That is why I expect the economy will remain trashed for a very long time whatever action is taken
One thing that would be useful to think about is: What's the effect on the economy of closing anywhere with a confined, badly-ventilated space where people gather for the foreseeable future? Restaurants, pubs, cinemas, some offices depending on layout - that's a non-trivial proportion of the economy, but also not an overwhelming one.
Not just restaurants, pubs, cinemas and some offices but cafes, clubs, theatres, museums, galleries, shops, hotels, B&B’s - essentially anywhere that isn’t a private home. That’s a pretty significant proportion of the economy.
That's taking it to a whole nother level, seems like you should be able to fix galleries, museums, shops, hotels if you're careful with crowding and ventilation? But yeah, indoor cafes also seem bad.
This guy giving the talk, harvard degree, harvard PhD, harvard medical school professor...clearly he wasn't the SARS-CoV-2 of his immunology 101 class.
The SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain elicits a potent neutralizing response without antibody-dependent enhancement https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.036418v1 The SARS-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike (S) protein mediates entry of SARS-CoV-2 into cells expressing the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). The S protein engages ACE2 through its receptor-binding domain (RBD), an independently folded 197-amino acid fragment of the 1273-amino acid S-protein protomer. Antibodies to the RBD domain of SARS-CoV (SARS-CoV-1), a closely related coronavirus which emerged in 2002-2003, have been shown to potently neutralize SARS-CoV-1 S-protein-mediated entry, and the presence of anti-RBD antibodies correlates with neutralization in SARS-CoV-2 convalescent sera. Here we show that immunization with the SARS-CoV-2 RBD elicits a robust neutralizing antibody response in rodents, comparable to 100 µg/ml of ACE2-Ig, a potent SARS-CoV-2 entry inhibitor. Importantly, anti-sera from immunized animals did not mediate antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of S-protein-mediated entry under conditions in which Zika virus ADE was readily observed. These data suggest that an RBD-based vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 could be safe and effective.
Farzan, the lead author on the paper just gave an online lecture from the Scripps Institute (one of the leading US research centres.
Interesting listening... Very optimistic about an effective vaccine: If HIV is a genius, and flu is an honours student... SARS-CoV-2 flunked immunology 101...
From about 8 mins in. www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjc1EIMQIwA
SARS-CoV-2 must have been in the same class as Robert Peston. They are both f##king annoying and too much exposure is very bad for your health.
It’s actually a very interesting lecture, which clarifies in an understandable manner some of the immune system workings in the particular context of Covid. Just listening at the moment.
The SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain elicits a potent neutralizing response without antibody-dependent enhancement https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.036418v1 The SARS-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike (S) protein mediates entry of SARS-CoV-2 into cells expressing the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). The S protein engages ACE2 through its receptor-binding domain (RBD), an independently folded 197-amino acid fragment of the 1273-amino acid S-protein protomer. Antibodies to the RBD domain of SARS-CoV (SARS-CoV-1), a closely related coronavirus which emerged in 2002-2003, have been shown to potently neutralize SARS-CoV-1 S-protein-mediated entry, and the presence of anti-RBD antibodies correlates with neutralization in SARS-CoV-2 convalescent sera. Here we show that immunization with the SARS-CoV-2 RBD elicits a robust neutralizing antibody response in rodents, comparable to 100 µg/ml of ACE2-Ig, a potent SARS-CoV-2 entry inhibitor. Importantly, anti-sera from immunized animals did not mediate antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of S-protein-mediated entry under conditions in which Zika virus ADE was readily observed. These data suggest that an RBD-based vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 could be safe and effective.
Farzan, the lead author on the paper just gave an online lecture from the Scripps Institute (one of the leading US research centres.
Interesting listening... Very optimistic about an effective vaccine: If HIV is a genius, and flu is an honours student... SARS-CoV-2 flunked immunology 101...
From about 8 mins in. www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjc1EIMQIwA
SARS-CoV-2 must have been in the same class as Robert Peston. They are both f##king annoying and too much exposure is very bad for your health.
It’s actually a very interesting lecture, which clarifies in an understandable manner some of the immune system workings in the particular context of Covid. Just listening at the moment.
One thing that would be useful to think about is: What's the effect on the economy of closing anywhere with a confined, badly-ventilated space where people gather for the foreseeable future?
Are you thinking of closing the House of Commons?
Yes. Do it remotely, it'll work better anyhow. (Although when I talk about "closing" in the context of the economy it doesn't matter whether they're literally closed or whether they're open, but hardly anyone shows up.)
The fact that they had that budget with everyone jammed into the same room right after one of their colleagues had tested positive was one of the many WTFs of Britain's astonishingly stupid early response.
Those of us who really don't want to get ill will have no choice but to stay well clear. No restaurants, pubs, sports grounds, cinemas etc because you know that significant numbers of people you will be with can't be trusted to have behaved responsibly. That is why I expect the economy will remain trashed for a very long time whatever action is taken
One thing that would be useful to think about is: What's the effect on the economy of closing anywhere with a confined, badly-ventilated space where people gather for the foreseeable future? Restaurants, pubs, cinemas, some offices depending on layout - that's a non-trivial proportion of the economy, but also not an overwhelming one.
I can't see that happening and I am no sure that it should. People should be free to go all those places if they think the risk is trivial for them. It's just unfortunately none of those places will be getting any business from me for a long while. We are adjusting to the new normal surprisingly easily, from now on holidays will driving to a cottage in France or Spain, no more flying or hotels.
I'm quite happy to stay out of pubs and restaurants for a few months more. But I want to be able to go to the countryside, with a picnic, and walk up a hill. I promise not to get too close to anyone not in my household. But I have exhausted all the places to go within walking distance of where I live.
That will happen soon enough I expect. Outside of cities there is much that can be done outdoors whilst still maintaining social distancing.
Those of us who really don't want to get ill will have no choice but to stay well clear. No restaurants, pubs, sports grounds, cinemas etc because you know that significant numbers of people you will be with can't be trusted to have behaved responsibly. That is why I expect the economy will remain trashed for a very long time whatever action is taken
One thing that would be useful to think about is: What's the effect on the economy of closing anywhere with a confined, badly-ventilated space where people gather for the foreseeable future? Restaurants, pubs, cinemas, some offices depending on layout - that's a non-trivial proportion of the economy, but also not an overwhelming one.
Not just restaurants, pubs, cinemas and some offices but cafes, clubs, theatres, museums, galleries, shops, hotels, B&B’s - essentially anywhere that isn’t a private home. That’s a pretty significant proportion of the economy.
That's taking it to a whole nother level, seems like you should be able to fix galleries, museums, shops, hotels if you're careful with crowding and ventilation? But yeah, indoor cafes also seem bad.
Have you seen how crowded museums and shops get? Or hotels for that matter? Open plan offices?
Anything which is not outdoors is a confined space. And what does good ventilation mean: open windows? Air conditioning?
I can't see that happening and I am no sure that it should. People should be free to go all those places if they think the risk is trivial for them. It's just unfortunately none of those places will be getting any business from me for a long while. We are adjusting to the new normal surprisingly easily, from now on holidays will driving to a cottage in France or Spain, no more flying or hotels.
In the context of the economy, "the restaurant was closed" and "the restaurant was open but hardly anybody came" are basically the same. OK, they're different for the staff, but a restaurant isn't going to stay open long if there are so few customers that it costs them more to serve the food than they get for selling the food.
However, where I'm not sure you're right on what *should* happen is that this isn't a purely personal decision, it has huge externalities. You don't just risk infecting yourself, you risk infecting people you know, and other people you don't know but still come into contact with. So although I'm generally libertarian-minded I don't think "let everyone do what they like at their own risk" is the right response here.
Obviously if you're going for the herd immunity thing here that changes the picture (and potentially even reverses the externalities at some point) but new data notwithstanding it doesn't look like anyone can get to herd immunity in any reasonable timeframe without frying their healthcare systems.
Those of us who really don't want to get ill will have no choice but to stay well clear. No restaurants, pubs, sports grounds, cinemas etc because you know that significant numbers of people you will be with can't be trusted to have behaved responsibly. That is why I expect the economy will remain trashed for a very long time whatever action is taken
One thing that would be useful to think about is: What's the effect on the economy of closing anywhere with a confined, badly-ventilated space where people gather for the foreseeable future? Restaurants, pubs, cinemas, some offices depending on layout - that's a non-trivial proportion of the economy, but also not an overwhelming one.
Not just restaurants, pubs, cinemas and some offices but cafes, clubs, theatres, museums, galleries, shops, hotels, B&B’s - essentially anywhere that isn’t a private home. That’s a pretty significant proportion of the economy.
That's taking it to a whole nother level, seems like you should be able to fix galleries, museums, shops, hotels if you're careful with crowding and ventilation? But yeah, indoor cafes also seem bad.
Have you seen how crowded museums and shops get?
We can compromise and allow people to visit museums and shops, but only shitty ones, which will ensure attendance remains low.
I can't see that happening and I am no sure that it should. People should be free to go all those places if they think the risk is trivial for them. It's just unfortunately none of those places will be getting any business from me for a long while. We are adjusting to the new normal surprisingly easily, from now on holidays will driving to a cottage in France or Spain, no more flying or hotels.
In the context of the economy, "the restaurant was closed" and "the restaurant was open but hardly anybody came" are basically the same. OK, they're different for the staff, but a restaurant isn't going to stay open long if there are so few customers that it costs them more to serve the food than they get for selling the food.
However, where I'm not sure you're right on what *should* happen is that this isn't a purely personal decision, it has huge externalities. You don't just risk infecting yourself, you risk infecting people you know, and other people you don't know but still come into contact with. So although I'm generally libertarian-minded I don't think "let everyone do what they like at their own risk" is the right response here.
Obviously if you're going for the herd immunity thing here that changes the picture (and potentially even reverses the externalities at some point) but new data notwithstanding it doesn't look like anyone can get to herd immunity in any reasonable timeframe without frying their healthcare systems.
All good points. But lockdown too has huge externalities. Its costs include deaths and other huge problems - borne by different groups of people and it too may have serious consequences for healthcare systems. So there are no easy answers.
People and societies have had to live with diseases, even very infectious ones, for which there was no cure in recent history - in the lives of our parents and grand-parents. We may have to realise that this will once again be the norm for us. We cannot assume there will be a vaccine. It seems to me that a lot of the assumptions underpinning current policy assume that there will be a vaccine and that it is a question of what we do until then. But if there isn’t or won’t be? What then? Well, we will be living more like previous generations did. No....?
Those of us who really don't want to get ill will have no choice but to stay well clear. No restaurants, pubs, sports grounds, cinemas etc because you know that significant numbers of people you will be with can't be trusted to have behaved responsibly. That is why I expect the economy will remain trashed for a very long time whatever action is taken
One thing that would be useful to think about is: What's the effect on the economy of closing anywhere with a confined, badly-ventilated space where people gather for the foreseeable future? Restaurants, pubs, cinemas, some offices depending on layout - that's a non-trivial proportion of the economy, but also not an overwhelming one.
Not just restaurants, pubs, cinemas and some offices but cafes, clubs, theatres, museums, galleries, shops, hotels, B&B’s - essentially anywhere that isn’t a private home. That’s a pretty significant proportion of the economy.
That's taking it to a whole nother level, seems like you should be able to fix galleries, museums, shops, hotels if you're careful with crowding and ventilation? But yeah, indoor cafes also seem bad.
Have you seen how crowded museums and shops get? Or hotels for that matter? Open plan offices?
Anything which is not outdoors is a confined space. And what does good ventilation mean: open windows? Air conditioning?
OK, I'm mostly pulling the specifics out of my arse here, but to give you an idea of the *kind* of thing I'm talking about:
Being careful with crowding would mean, in a museum's case, that they'd need to limit how many people can come in at a time, and potentially have attendants directing people to prevent them from bunching.
For a hotel, you get crowds around the reception, and the restaurant, and in the elevators. So the restaurant would have to either close (eat in your room) or, if it's well ventilated, control crowding. For reception, you might move more of the process online so you hardly have to do anything there. For the elevators, you might need to reduce the number of guests on the upper floors and ask some of the guests to use the stairs. For ventilation, you'd want to look at how airflow is being circulated to make sure that if somebody coughs in room 101, it doesn't discharge the droplets straight into 102 or 201.
Anywhere with multiple people in the same space would want to make sure air doesn't hang around for a long time. In some cases that might be just a matter of opening windows and maybe adding fans to make sure the air circulates appropriately. In others you might want to add extractor fans - for example, in a Japanese yakiniku restaurant where you grill meat at the table, there's a big, noisy extractor fan about *every* table. We might need systems like that in all kinds of places that aren't yakiniku restaurants...
Those of us who really don't want to get ill will have no choice but to stay well clear. No restaurants, pubs, sports grounds, cinemas etc because you know that significant numbers of people you will be with can't be trusted to have behaved responsibly. That is why I expect the economy will remain trashed for a very long time whatever action is taken
One thing that would be useful to think about is: What's the effect on the economy of closing anywhere with a confined, badly-ventilated space where people gather for the foreseeable future? Restaurants, pubs, cinemas, some offices depending on layout - that's a non-trivial proportion of the economy, but also not an overwhelming one.
Not just restaurants, pubs, cinemas and some offices but cafes, clubs, theatres, museums, galleries, shops, hotels, B&B’s - essentially anywhere that isn’t a private home. That’s a pretty significant proportion of the economy.
That's taking it to a whole nother level, seems like you should be able to fix galleries, museums, shops, hotels if you're careful with crowding and ventilation? But yeah, indoor cafes also seem bad.
Have you seen how crowded museums and shops get? Or hotels for that matter? Open plan offices?
Anything which is not outdoors is a confined space. And what does good ventilation mean: open windows? Air conditioning?
OK, I'm mostly pulling the specifics out of my arse here, but to give you an idea of the *kind* of thing I'm talking about:
Being careful with crowding would mean, in a museum's case, that they'd need to limit how many people can come in at a time, and potentially have attendants directing people to prevent them from bunching.
For a hotel, you get crowds around the reception, and the restaurant, and in the elevators. So the restaurant would have to either close (eat in your room) or, if it's well ventilated, control crowding. For reception, you might move more of the process online so you hardly have to do anything there. For the elevators, you might need to reduce the number of guests on the upper floors and ask some of the guests to use the stairs. For ventilation, you'd want to look at how airflow is being circulated to make sure that if somebody coughs in room 101, it doesn't discharge the droplets straight into 102 or 201.
Anywhere with multiple people in the same space would want to make sure air doesn't hang around for a long time. In some cases that might be just a matter of opening windows and maybe adding fans to make sure the air circulates appropriately. In others you might want to add extractor fans - for example, in a Japanese yakiniku restaurant where you grill meat at the table, there's a big, noisy extractor fan about *every* table. We might need systems like that in all kinds of places that aren't yakiniku restaurants...
I can't see that happening and I am no sure that it should. People should be free to go all those places if they think the risk is trivial for them. It's just unfortunately none of those places will be getting any business from me for a long while. We are adjusting to the new normal surprisingly easily, from now on holidays will driving to a cottage in France or Spain, no more flying or hotels.
In the context of the economy, "the restaurant was closed" and "the restaurant was open but hardly anybody came" are basically the same. OK, they're different for the staff, but a restaurant isn't going to stay open long if there are so few customers that it costs them more to serve the food than they get for selling the food.
However, where I'm not sure you're right on what *should* happen is that this isn't a purely personal decision, it has huge externalities. You don't just risk infecting yourself, you risk infecting people you know, and other people you don't know but still come into contact with. So although I'm generally libertarian-minded I don't think "let everyone do what they like at their own risk" is the right response here.
Obviously if you're going for the herd immunity thing here that changes the picture (and potentially even reverses the externalities at some point) but new data notwithstanding it doesn't look like anyone can get to herd immunity in any reasonable timeframe without frying their healthcare systems.
All good points. But lockdown too has huge externalities. Its costs include deaths and other huge problems - borne by different groups of people and it too may have serious consequences for healthcare systems. So there are no easy answers.
People and societies have had to live with diseases, even very infectious ones, for which there was no cure in recent history - in the lives of our parents and grand-parents. We may have to realise that this will once again be the norm for us. We cannot assume there will be a vaccine. It seems to me that a lot of the assumptions underpinning current policy assume that there will be a vaccine and that it is a question of what we do until then. But if there isn’t or won’t be? What then? Well, we will be living more like previous generations did. No....?
I think we can expect effective vaccines with some degree of certainty. But I must go to sleep, too.
I can't see that happening and I am no sure that it should. People should be free to go all those places if they think the risk is trivial for them. It's just unfortunately none of those places will be getting any business from me for a long while. We are adjusting to the new normal surprisingly easily, from now on holidays will driving to a cottage in France or Spain, no more flying or hotels.
In the context of the economy, "the restaurant was closed" and "the restaurant was open but hardly anybody came" are basically the same. OK, they're different for the staff, but a restaurant isn't going to stay open long if there are so few customers that it costs them more to serve the food than they get for selling the food.
However, where I'm not sure you're right on what *should* happen is that this isn't a purely personal decision, it has huge externalities. You don't just risk infecting yourself, you risk infecting people you know, and other people you don't know but still come into contact with. So although I'm generally libertarian-minded I don't think "let everyone do what they like at their own risk" is the right response here.
Obviously if you're going for the herd immunity thing here that changes the picture (and potentially even reverses the externalities at some point) but new data notwithstanding it doesn't look like anyone can get to herd immunity in any reasonable timeframe without frying their healthcare systems.
All good points. But lockdown too has huge externalities. Its costs include deaths and other huge problems - borne by different groups of people and it too may have serious consequences for healthcare systems. So there are no easy answers.
People and societies have had to live with diseases, even very infectious ones, for which there was no cure in recent history - in the lives of our parents and grand-parents. We may have to realise that this will once again be the norm for us. We cannot assume there will be a vaccine. It seems to me that a lot of the assumptions underpinning current policy assume that there will be a vaccine and that it is a question of what we do until then. But if there isn’t or won’t be? What then? Well, we will be living more like previous generations did. No....?
I'm not talking about lockdowns, I'm talking about ending lockdowns while closing the highest-risk places. Currently a lot of places are very high risk, but often in many cases can probably be fixed.
To go with your analogy, there was a time when food hygiene was often very bad, and loads of people got sick. Now there are all kinds of regulations about what restaurants and food processors have to do to avoid giving people food poisoning, and if you're not able to meet those standards - which are often quite expensive - you have to close until you can fix it. It may turn out we need something similar for virus contagion, with someone responsible for avoiding contagion vectors in every public building and workplace, many of which will need to be refitted.
This will be very expensive, but even before coronavirus we lost a lot of workplace productivity to virus contagion, so it might turn out to be a long-term plus...
Slightly concerning farzan saying most of the people who have set off making vaccines so far are making a mistake.
Though he goes on to say that some of these vaccines might be synergistic with the one using his approach.
From what i understood his concerns were a) inefficient and harder to make and b) more danger side effects and c) because a) and b) longer to get ready.
Funnily enough, 60% was the quoted minimum figure needed for it to work, wasn't it? But my feeling is if the government brought this app in take-up would be much higher than 59%. Remember there was scepticism about how rigourously the people of the UK would respect the lockdown. And downloading an app is a piece of piss versus 4+ weeks shut up in your house.
Funnily enough, 60% was the quoted minimum figure needed for it to work, wasn't it? But my feeling is if the government brought this app in take-up would be much higher than 59%. Remember there was scepticism about how rigourously the people of the UK would respect the lockdown. And downloading an app is a piece of piss versus 4+ weeks shut up in your house.
Yes, I think that's right, though as only 19% of over-65s have smartphones there would be a need to offer a cheap wristband or similar to do the same thing. And of course people who preferred to stay at home, either on libertarian grounds or because they felt scared, could do so until the situation improved.
That said, merely having an app doesn't do the trick, surely? It needs lots of testing so that people with the virus could be tracked.
Funnily enough, 60% was the quoted minimum figure needed for it to work, wasn't it? But my feeling is if the government brought this app in take-up would be much higher than 59%. Remember there was scepticism about how rigourously the people of the UK would respect the lockdown. And downloading an app is a piece of piss versus 4+ weeks shut up in your house.
Yes, I think that's right, though as only 19% of over-65s have smartphones there would be a need to offer a cheap wristband or similar to do the same thing. And of course people who preferred to stay at home, either on libertarian grounds or because they felt scared, could do so until the situation improved.
That said, merely having an app doesn't do the trick, surely? It needs lots of testing so that people with the virus could be tracked.
Presumably the target would by 60%+ of the under 70s, with the elderly expected to continue respecting the 'full' lockdown for the foreseeable. I think the latter point is for the birds though: the lockdown is eased for everyone, or no one. It's often older people who seem to be the most sceptical of the lockdown, can't see them continuing to squirrel themselves away while everyone else returns to some level of normalcy. My elderly parents would be flicking the 'V' at authority at that point, and venturing out regardless.
I can't see that happening and I am no sure that it should. People should be free to go all those places if they think the risk is trivial for them. It's just unfortunately none of those places will be getting any business from me for a long while. We are adjusting to the new normal surprisingly easily, from now on holidays will driving to a cottage in France or Spain, no more flying or hotels.
In the context of the economy, "the restaurant was closed" and "the restaurant was open but hardly anybody came" are basically the same. OK, they're different for the staff, but a restaurant isn't going to stay open long if there are so few customers that it costs them more to serve the food than they get for selling the food.
However, where I'm not sure you're right on what *should* happen is that this isn't a purely personal decision, it has huge externalities. You don't just risk infecting yourself, you risk infecting people you know, and other people you don't know but still come into contact with. So although I'm generally libertarian-minded I don't think "let everyone do what they like at their own risk" is the right response here.
Obviously if you're going for the herd immunity thing here that changes the picture (and potentially even reverses the externalities at some point) but new data notwithstanding it doesn't look like anyone can get to herd immunity in any reasonable timeframe without frying their healthcare systems.
All good points. But lockdown too has huge externalities. Its costs include deaths and other huge problems - borne by different groups of people and it too may have serious consequences for healthcare systems. So there are no easy answers.
People and societies have had to live with diseases, even very infectious ones, for which there was no cure in recent history - in the lives of our parents and grand-parents. We may have to realise that this will once again be the norm for us. We cannot assume there will be a vaccine. It seems to me that a lot of the assumptions underpinning current policy assume that there will be a vaccine and that it is a question of what we do until then. But if there isn’t or won’t be? What then? Well, we will be living more like previous generations did. No....?
I'm not talking about lockdowns, I'm talking about ending lockdowns while closing the highest-risk places. Currently a lot of places are very high risk, but often in many cases can probably be fixed.
To go with your analogy, there was a time when food hygiene was often very bad, and loads of people got sick. Now there are all kinds of regulations about what restaurants and food processors have to do to avoid giving people food poisoning, and if you're not able to meet those standards - which are often quite expensive - you have to close until you can fix it. It may turn out we need something similar for virus contagion, with someone responsible for avoiding contagion vectors in every public building and workplace, many of which will need to be refitted.
This will be very expensive, but even before coronavirus we lost a lot of workplace productivity to virus contagion, so it might turn out to be a long-term plus...
In the meantime, consider buying HVAC stocks.
See.also Health and Safety. My Dad was one of the first H+S inspectors on construction sites. Yes it cost. Yes it's a hassle. But boy did it cut deaths and serious injuries. See also pollution in the 50s.
Farzan is a big believer in "dose". You don't want to get a big viral load of this bastard i.e. like healthcare workers do.
At all stages, minimise your dose of exposure of to it...cough cough...masks.
There's a lot of evidence that size of viral load matters. A lot of early vaccines were just small doses of live diseases - enough that the immune system was able to deal with it without getting overloaded.
Yes, I think that's right, though as only 19% of over-65s have smartphones there would be a need to offer a cheap wristband or similar to do the same thing. And of course people who preferred to stay at home, either on libertarian grounds or because they felt scared, could do so until the situation improved.
If the goal is better contact tracing then you're probably better just making the thing voluntary. Even if you only get 80% compliance then that'll be nearly as good as getting 100%, and you can fall back on the traditional "ask people where they went" method for people who don't have the app or they had it and their battery went flat or whatever.
The problem with compulsion is that you give people who don't like the system a reason to actively subvert it and fill it with bad data, and it's probably not practical to stop them doing that.
Don't get this. So Trump wants to incite rebellion against Dem governors who lockdown. But oppose Rep ones who open up? Mmm K.
With Trump it's always hard to tell what's cunning low politics and what's a confused old man with absolutely no idea what's going on changing his mind depending which TV program he just watched. There's definitely plenty of both.
Don't get this. So Trump wants to incite rebellion against Dem governors who lockdown. But oppose Rep ones who open up? Mmm K.
With Trump it's always hard to tell what's cunning low politics and what's a confused old man with absolutely no idea what's going on changing his mind depending which TV program he just watched. There's definitely plenty of both.
Indeed. We thought we were divided.. Even the most anti Lockdown person on this site is not waving around a semi-automatic and telling health care workers to pos off to China. Not whilst awake anyways.
Just ignoring everything else and looking at the objective data points, what they're telling us is that Biden is going to win.
Plenty of 5 or 6% leads for Kerry in April or May 2004 there, it will still be very close in my view
Cherry-pick that factoid if you like but to any sane observer these two things are not the same. A key difference is that if you look at the column for the lead, one of them is a roughly even mix of red and blue (if anything, more red than blue), whereas the other one is all blue.
One of the most interesting things about Sars Cov 2 is how good it is at flying under the radar in its hosts. When you get a cold or flu you get it, your body knows it and you know it, whether the symptoms are only the sniffles or more severe. With this thing, in a fair chunk of cases you just don't know you got it?
Its like some kind of stealth virus that seems to do a good job of avoiding scrutiny whether by having no notable impact or not getting noticed for days on end until it really springs forth.
I am aware and its not speculation, that both anti malaria and anti-virals have been prescribed by NHS physicians for non hospitalised cases. Is anyone else aware of whether this is policy/suggested clinical practice or are some doctors winging it with individual responses?
Re: Trump, his whole business with the situation in individual states is avoidance of responsibility and a maximum attempt at 'i told you so' no matter the outcome .
The government could make it a criminal offence not to have the app of course but 59% for quite an intrusive government action is actually quite high
I don't own a smartphone so I'm not sure how you'd force me to have an app.
Make it a criminal offence not to own a smartphone
I’d download the app but my phone is out if the ark, no bluetooth on it. I’d get a cheap one if needed (I don’t know how much the cheapest are - £50?) We’ll need people to donate old smartphones for those that can’t afford them, for sure.
The figure saying yes is way too low though, the government have to spend the next couple of months flooding the media with the importance of tracking and tracing and that means everyone. We’ve seen how the small anti-vaxxer element can open the door for infections, we couldn’t afford that level of refusal for this.
It’s as though this virus has an its own rapid rebuttal unit. As soon as you think you’re getting a handle on it, then something else pops up that muddies the waters again.
One of the most interesting things about Sars Cov 2 is how good it is at flying under the radar in its hosts. When you get a cold or flu you get it, your body knows it and you know it, whether the symptoms are only the sniffles or more severe. With this thing, in a fair chunk of cases you just don't know you got it?
Its like some kind of stealth virus that seems to do a good job of avoiding scrutiny whether by having no notable impact or not getting noticed for days on end until it really springs forth.
I am aware and its not speculation, that both anti malaria and anti-virals have been prescribed by NHS physicians for non hospitalised cases. Is anyone else aware of whether this is policy/suggested clinical practice or are some doctors winging it with individual responses?
Re: Trump, his whole business with the situation in individual states is avoidance of responsibility and a maximum attempt at 'i told you so' no matter the outcome .
How do we know?
Surely many of us have had colds that turn into nothing or disappear very quickly, and also that feeling that we might be getting a cold then none appears. It isn’t unreasonable to suggest there may be asymptomatic ways of getting the virus.
Just ignoring everything else and looking at the objective data points, what they're telling us is that Biden is going to win.
I wouldn't want to rely on any polling whilst this Covid outbreak is still killing thousands. The battleground will be the post-Covid economy and who has the best offering on that come September/October.
And whether they can still remember their own name by then.
Slightly concerning farzan saying most of the people who have set off making vaccines so far are making a mistake.
Though he goes on to say that some of these vaccines might be synergistic with the one using his approach.
From what i understood his concerns were a) inefficient and harder to make and b) more danger side effects and c) because a) and b) longer to get ready.
No vaccine that really dangerous is going to make it past the first stage of human trials, if that. He’s more concerned about efficacy, but points out that given in concert with his vaccine, even non neutralising antibodies which bound to other bits of the virus protein spike provide a lot more immune effector antibody tails, which will be signalling the killer bits of the immune system to target the right thing.
What you don’t want is a load of antibody which doesn’t bind to the virus floating around, which ramp up the killer cells without pointing them in the right direction.
Slightly concerning farzan saying most of the people who have set off making vaccines so far are making a mistake.
Though he goes on to say that some of these vaccines might be synergistic with the one using his approach.
From what i understood his concerns were a) inefficient and harder to make and b) more danger side effects and c) because a) and b) longer to get ready.
No vaccine that really dangerous is going to make it past the first stage of human trials, if that. He’s more concerned about efficacy, but points out that given in concert with his vaccine, even non neutralising antibodies which bound to other bits of the virus protein spike provide a lot more immune effector antibody tails, which will be signalling the killer bits of the immune system to target the right thing.
What you don’t want is a load of antibody which doesn’t bind to the virus floating around, which ramp up the killer cells without pointing them in the right direction.
The latter effect is actively promoted by the virus when it bursts open, when infecting our cells. You’ll remember he discussed the nucleocapsid protein contained inside the virus, which promotes an extremely strong antibody response - creating loads of antibody which can’t bind to the live virus, as the protein is hidden inside it, and which contribute to the damaging general inflammation of the lungs.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/without-a-plan-its-not-going-to-stop-care-homes-fear-worst-yet-to-come-covid-19
Just listening at the moment.
https://www.effiedeans.com/2020/04/journalism-is-missing-mood-country.html
The fact that they had that budget with everyone jammed into the same room right after one of their colleagues had tested positive was one of the many WTFs of Britain's astonishingly stupid early response.
That will happen soon enough I expect. Outside of cities there is much that can be done outdoors whilst still maintaining social distancing.
Anything which is not outdoors is a confined space. And what does good ventilation mean: open windows? Air conditioning?
However, where I'm not sure you're right on what *should* happen is that this isn't a purely personal decision, it has huge externalities. You don't just risk infecting yourself, you risk infecting people you know, and other people you don't know but still come into contact with. So although I'm generally libertarian-minded I don't think "let everyone do what they like at their own risk" is the right response here.
Obviously if you're going for the herd immunity thing here that changes the picture (and potentially even reverses the externalities at some point) but new data notwithstanding it doesn't look like anyone can get to herd immunity in any reasonable timeframe without frying their healthcare systems.
People and societies have had to live with diseases, even very infectious ones, for which there was no cure in recent history - in the lives of our parents and grand-parents. We may have to realise that this will once again be the norm for us. We cannot assume there will be a vaccine. It seems to me that a lot of the assumptions underpinning current policy assume that there will be a vaccine and that it is a question of what we do until then. But if there isn’t or won’t be? What then? Well, we will be living more like previous generations did. No....?
Being careful with crowding would mean, in a museum's case, that they'd need to limit how many people can come in at a time, and potentially have attendants directing people to prevent them from bunching.
For a hotel, you get crowds around the reception, and the restaurant, and in the elevators. So the restaurant would have to either close (eat in your room) or, if it's well ventilated, control crowding. For reception, you might move more of the process online so you hardly have to do anything there. For the elevators, you might need to reduce the number of guests on the upper floors and ask some of the guests to use the stairs. For ventilation, you'd want to look at how airflow is being circulated to make sure that if somebody coughs in room 101, it doesn't discharge the droplets straight into 102 or 201.
Anywhere with multiple people in the same space would want to make sure air doesn't hang around for a long time. In some cases that might be just a matter of opening windows and maybe adding fans to make sure the air circulates appropriately. In others you might want to add extractor fans - for example, in a Japanese yakiniku restaurant where you grill meat at the table, there's a big, noisy extractor fan about *every* table. We might need systems like that in all kinds of places that aren't yakiniku restaurants...
Going to bed now. Good night.
But I must go to sleep, too.
To go with your analogy, there was a time when food hygiene was often very bad, and loads of people got sick. Now there are all kinds of regulations about what restaurants and food processors have to do to avoid giving people food poisoning, and if you're not able to meet those standards - which are often quite expensive - you have to close until you can fix it. It may turn out we need something similar for virus contagion, with someone responsible for avoiding contagion vectors in every public building and workplace, many of which will need to be refitted.
This will be very expensive, but even before coronavirus we lost a lot of workplace productivity to virus contagion, so it might turn out to be a long-term plus...
In the meantime, consider buying HVAC stocks.
At all stages, minimise your dose of exposure of to it...cough cough...masks.
That said, merely having an app doesn't do the trick, surely? It needs lots of testing so that people with the virus could be tracked.
The rumours, and they're just rumours, are that there is reasonably good efficacy.
He provided a whole range of possible approaches, many of which are already known to be safe for humans.
The problem with compulsion is that you give people who don't like the system a reason to actively subvert it and fill it with bad data, and it's probably not practical to stop them doing that.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2004/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_kerry-939.html
Just ignoring everything else and looking at the objective data points, what they're telling us is that Biden is going to win.
Mmm K.
Not whilst awake anyways.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2004/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_kerry-939.html#polls
Its like some kind of stealth virus that seems to do a good job of avoiding scrutiny whether by having no notable impact or not getting noticed for days on end until it really springs forth.
I am aware and its not speculation, that both anti malaria and anti-virals have been prescribed by NHS physicians for non hospitalised cases. Is anyone else aware of whether this is policy/suggested clinical practice or are some doctors winging it with individual responses?
Re: Trump, his whole business with the situation in individual states is avoidance of responsibility and a maximum attempt at 'i told you so' no matter the outcome
.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52385558
The figure saying yes is way too low though, the government have to spend the next couple of months flooding the media with the importance of tracking and tracing and that means everyone. We’ve seen how the small anti-vaxxer element can open the door for infections, we couldn’t afford that level of refusal for this.
Wow, they could have been infected in early to mid Jan.
It must have been circulating in USA way before it was thought.
Surely many of us have had colds that turn into nothing or disappear very quickly, and also that feeling that we might be getting a cold then none appears. It isn’t unreasonable to suggest there may be asymptomatic ways of getting the virus.
And whether they can still remember their own name by then.
What you don’t want is a load of antibody which doesn’t bind to the virus floating around, which ramp up the killer cells without pointing them in the right direction.