politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s VP pick – the case for 40/1 Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth
This weekend the junior senator for Illinois, Tammy Duckworth, is due to have a meeting with presumptive nominee, Joe Biden, about the possibility of her being on the ticket in November.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
I assume the models and interpretation of testing data are taking this possibility into account?
As well as the many political arguments in her favour, there is an emotional tie.
"Warren told me about a call she received from Biden the morning after her brother died [in April]. Their conversation was “one person who’d lost loved ones trying to console another person who just lost her beloved brother,” she said.
Connections formed in grief tend to stay with Biden. This one has certainly stayed with Warren."
I guess so but weirdly the miltary religious fanatics of the GOP seem fine with danger-avoiding Donald who trashed McCain and families of dead vets. For the umpteenth time, it's a funny ole place, America.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Tammy Duckworth is possible. There is something odd about her Google video search results in that almost all lead back to her Senate home page and not directly to any videos.
Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has said he'll ask parliament for a further - and final - extension to the state of emergency declared over coronavirus.
Sánchez wants it to be extended for a month, instead of the customary two weeks. The current extension is due to expire in a week's time.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
Tammy Duckworth is possible. There is something odd about her Google video search results in that almost all lead back to her Senate home page and not directly to any videos.
One question before relying on Duckworth's military status is whether she will be swiftboated, as John Kerry was but with added twitterbots.
So that could well be never then, or at least 2 years. The education of especially disadvantaged kids will be effected for life.
Dying affects people for life too. This whole schools business is a bit of a mess. If the schools can reopen, why did we need to cancel A-levels? Why wear masks in shops or on buses but not in more crowded classrooms? And so on. The government has issued pages and pages of guidance but a lot amounts to "work something out".
Masks, well you know my opinion on this. But Nordic countries have their teachers wear them, but not the kids. I believe a total of 2 kids with no underlying health condition have died, and there isn't much evidence that kids are proving to be some massive transport vector (in the same say going to a nightclub is).
I
Is an 18 year old doing A levels less of a risk than one in a nightclub? Probably, but not by much.
I think children do catch it, and there is some risk of onward transmission, but life is about balancing and mitigating risks. Strong ground rules. No playground games, lots of washing, etc.
Temperature taken at the schoolgate, with staggered start times. Swab all children on their first day back, and entire classes if a case occurs.
Well I hope the older kids that do go back aren't crushed together snogging all day....
I think the idea of only having a just few year groups back before summer is that they can run small classes, so even the 15 / 17 year olds can remain sufficiently socially distance.
Also, kids clearly do catch it, but the risk to healthy ones is so so small. I would have thought more 17-18 year olds end up hospitalized with drink / drugs over a normal summer, than will be admitted due to coronavirus from sitting socially distance in a classroom.
The bigger risk is with the teachers.
Restrict teachers to those aged under 45 and not living with a vulnerable person. Low risk. It would reduce the availability of teachers. I don't know by what %.
Teaching staff under 45. Primary 75%, Secondary 68% Teaching staff under 50, Primary 86%, Secondary 82% Teaching staff under 55, Primary 95%, Secondary 92%
This is state schools, adding independents may take a percentage point or two off each.
I never realised I was in such a small group. I think I’m the oldest there, as of next year.
I imagine that premises and catering staff skew a bit older, just from observation.
Thanks. So my suggestion wouldn't reduce the availability of teachers by that much. But there might be a problem with premises and catering staff?
Maybe more difficult in some subjects. PE skews younger usually, for obvious reasons. I heard some suggestion of older staff being used for a push into virtual learning but that might just be idle chatter about the idea of a National Tutoring Service.
We have a chance to rethink things here in various areas and the tendency to want the same as before is going to hamper ways forward. The exam system, the approach to disadvantaged students, the use of technology etc., all of these areas are ready to be made anew and better. Break it down, build it up.
As well as the many political arguments in her favour, there is an emotional tie.
"Warren told me about a call she received from Biden the morning after her brother died [in April]. Their conversation was “one person who’d lost loved ones trying to console another person who just lost her beloved brother,” she said.
Connections formed in grief tend to stay with Biden. This one has certainly stayed with Warren."
Agree that she could be value and she performed very well in the later debates. I guess the question is what would she bring to the ticket. Obviously nothing extra with her home state, the Governor is a Republican (I read the rules but can't make heads or tails whether it would only be until November or after) and she probably wouldn't bring much in the way of Bernie voters given the antipathy. I think she could be a surprise Secretary of the Treasury in a Biden administration though
I guess so but weirdly the miltary religious fanatics of the GOP seem fine with danger-avoiding Donald who trashed McCain and families of dead vets. For the umpteenth time, it's a funny ole place, America.
John Kerry got hammered for his war service too, though this is one of the most powerful speeches that you will hear.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
Neither of those is an example of the virus having stopped spreading in the absence of extreme counter-measures.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
Countries seem to be moving ahead quite strongly with reopening borders and lifting lockdowns, even if they are planning them ahead and instituting stringent safety measures. I am wondering if they have access to data that predicts some sort of fizzle out effect. You are right that London has dropped off dramatically, and it seems likely that lockdown has been less effective there due to a higher population density, people sharing parks, travelling by public transport etc
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
Countries seem to be moving ahead quite strongly with reopening borders and lifting lockdowns, even if they are planning them ahead and instituting stringent safety measures. I am wondering if they have access to data that predicts some sort of fizzle out effect. You are right that London has dropped off dramatically, and it seems likely that lockdown has been less effective there due to a higher population density, people sharing parks, travelling by public transport etc
So there are secret data indicating a "fizzle out effect" and - despite the desperation of all governments to get back to normal - there's a conspiracy not to tell anyone?
Is this how we will have to watch sport in these socially distant times?
No it always looked like that at Highbury in the good old days when they wouldn't let you in unless you wore a tie.
Flicking through some old photo's yesterday I found one of my Dads mate who owned the winner of the 1988 Greyhound derby with his dog, which was called "Hit The Lid". He was an Arsenal season ticket holder in the East Stand, and took me to my first game at Highbury in his Roller around 1981. Very plush.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
Countries seem to be moving ahead quite strongly with reopening borders and lifting lockdowns, even if they are planning them ahead and instituting stringent safety measures. I am wondering if they have access to data that predicts some sort of fizzle out effect. You are right that London has dropped off dramatically, and it seems likely that lockdown has been less effective there due to a higher population density, people sharing parks, travelling by public transport etc
So there are secret data indicating a "fizzle out effect" and - despite the desperation of all governments to get back to normal - there's a conspiracy not to tell anyone?
No I just suspect that governments have access to research that hasn't yet entered the public domain. Who knows what Porton Down is up to? It may just be the economic imperative driving it, though, rather than confidence that it is on the way out.
As well as the many political arguments in her favour, there is an emotional tie.
"Warren told me about a call she received from Biden the morning after her brother died [in April]. Their conversation was “one person who’d lost loved ones trying to console another person who just lost her beloved brother,” she said.
Connections formed in grief tend to stay with Biden. This one has certainly stayed with Warren."
Agree that she could be value and she performed very well in the later debates. I guess the question is what would she bring to the ticket. Obviously nothing extra with her home state, the Governor is a Republican (I read the rules but can't make heads or tails whether it would only be until November or after) and she probably wouldn't bring much in the way of Bernie voters given the antipathy. I think she could be a surprise Secretary of the Treasury in a Biden administration though
What she'd bring to the ticket - complementing Biden:
1. She has lots of well thought out plans including for Covid-19 and is articulate in explaining them (in contrast to both presidential candidates). 2. She is bursting with energy and commitment bringing fizz and money to the campaign. (Contrast that with Kamala Harris the favourite) 3. She is to the left of Biden and can attract many Bernie supporters. 4. Obama rates her (read the article) and Biden listens to Obama.
Countries seem to be moving ahead quite strongly with reopening borders and lifting lockdowns, even if they are planning them ahead and instituting stringent safety measures. I am wondering if they have access to data that predicts some sort of fizzle out effect.
Even without any special fizzle effect, 6 weeks of lockdown really clamps down on the virus with straightforward exponential decay. For example, average of a few models I track shows Germany at just 2k daily infections, and the UK at 12k (and of course only a fraction of those will have a nasty case, maybe a third to half won't even have symptoms).
Guess it depends where the numbers go now - we don't seem to have much room for error.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly
It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
Interesting that one of the effects of social distancing could be to allow the virus to spread but at a low viral load, meaning that people get it less severely
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
Countries seem to be moving ahead quite strongly with reopening borders and lifting lockdowns, even if they are planning them ahead and instituting stringent safety measures. I am wondering if they have access to data that predicts some sort of fizzle out effect. You are right that London has dropped off dramatically, and it seems likely that lockdown has been less effective there due to a higher population density, people sharing parks, travelling by public transport etc
So there are secret data indicating a "fizzle out effect" and - despite the desperation of all governments to get back to normal - there's a conspiracy not to tell anyone?
No I just suspect that governments have access to research that hasn't yet entered the public domain. Who knows what Porton Down is up to? It may just be the economic imperative driving it, though, rather than confidence that it is on the way out.
We know exactly what Porton Down is up to. They're doing the antibody testing as part of the ONS antigen/antibody survey, the antigen results of which are already being published.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly
It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.
But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
It could be because substantially all have been infected or are immune.
It's an infection fatality rate, so it would require 100% of the population to have been infected. Not even measles is infectious enough to achieve that!
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly
It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.
But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
It could be because substantially all have been infected or are immune.
You almost seem to be trying to execute a pincer movement of mutually exclusive nonsense.
On the one hand, you're telling us a large percentage of the population may be immune. On the other, you're telling us 100% of the population of New York City may have been infected!
Everyone is in favour of *safely* reopening the schools but Adonis begs the question.
People keep saying re-open schools, but they've never been closed, my niece is a teacher and she is there working with the key worker's kids and some of those classed as vulnerable.
I do wonder if this goes on too long that the fireman's the postman's and the shopworker's kids will all be at Oxford and Cambridge whilst those belonging to the stockbroker, the lawyer and the business executive will all be on the scrapheap.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly
It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.
But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
I doubt that he refers to a particular strain of the virus which reportedly has 10s if not 100s of mutations by now. Also if you listen, he says that 0.25% is distinctly possible but his central estimate is nearer 0.4%.
0.4% is little more justification for putting me under house arrest than 0.25%. People who are terrified of it are still free to stay at home and not visit friends or relatives.
But it would be good if the government would ask someone like Spiegelhalter to advise them on risk comparison and management. At the moment, they appear not much more knowledgeable than Mrs Jones next door, aged 48, who thinks that she may well die if she goes down the shops.
The NHS already is supposed to be managed this way, by NICE costing the risks and benefits of different treatments. This was suddenly discarded in a blind panic.
It looks like she would be a good candidate in 2024 but does she help with African American turnout? On the other hand should you bet against a junior Senator from Illinois?
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly
It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.
But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
It could be because substantially all have been infected or are immune.
You almost seem to be trying to execute a pincer movement of mutually exclusive nonsense.
On the one hand, you're telling us a large percentage of the population may be immune. On the other, you're telling us 100% of the population of New York City may have been infected!
I said infected or immune in the sense that they can cope with light viral loads. 100% of New Yorkers may have been exposed to the virus. 0.25% of them died.
EDIT: It obviously depends what you mean by "fatality rate". You seem quite passionate and defensive about this and push back vigourously on any questioning in spite of the uncertainty and unknowns.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
I assume the models and interpretation of testing data are taking this possibility into account?
Not really.
The Roche Antibody test is finding detectable antibodies in nearly everyone proven to have it.
Until we have population antibody tests with such a reliable test we really cannot know.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
I have the absolutely dreadful gut feeling that this business of asymptomatic infections is going to fall right between two stools.
Not high enough to generate the "iceberg effect" that gets us towards herd immunity faster and slams the brakes on new infections.
But not so low to prevent there being chains of asymptomatic transmission which bugger up "play-to-win whack-a-mole" strategies based on contact tracing. (A different context since there the vast majority of infections are asymptomatic, but this is one of the reasons polio has proven to be a tough nut to crack. Plenty of places where the virus is still being detected in human sewage despite no recorded cases for years.)
I hope to be wrong and this isn't on any more of a scientific basis than the mere observation of both high and low estimates of asymptomatic infections still being circulated by their proponents.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly
It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.
But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
Maybe because the rate will be considerably higher in a densely-populated area with a highly-transient population like New York City compared to the overall rate.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly
It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.
But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
It could be because substantially all have been infected or are immune.
It's an infection fatality rate, so it would require 100% of the population to have been infected. Not even measles is infectious enough to achieve that!
This is just irrational nonsense.
New York City will have a much higher transient population due to commuting. In fact that might be one of the fa
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
Countries seem to be moving ahead quite strongly with reopening borders and lifting lockdowns, even if they are planning them ahead and instituting stringent safety measures. I am wondering if they have access to data that predicts some sort of fizzle out effect. You are right that London has dropped off dramatically, and it seems likely that lockdown has been less effective there due to a higher population density, people sharing parks, travelling by public transport etc
So there are secret data indicating a "fizzle out effect" and - despite the desperation of all governments to get back to normal - there's a conspiracy not to tell anyone?
No I just suspect that governments have access to research that hasn't yet entered the public domain. Who knows what Porton Down is up to? It may just be the economic imperative driving it, though, rather than confidence that it is on the way out.
We know exactly what Porton Down is up to. They're doing the antibody testing as part of the ONS antigen/antibody survey, the antigen results of which are already being published.
We don't know what else they're up to. I have never seen the advice and research that is informing Whitty & Co. I can't believe governments aren't talking to *everyone* who has knowledge of the subject. I'm not saying there's some sort of conspiracy happening but I still think governments will be ahead of the curve on cutting edge, probably very tentative, research
Everyone is in favour of *safely* reopening the schools but Adonis begs the question.
People keep saying re-open schools, but they've never been closed, my niece is a teacher and she is there working with the key worker's kids and some of those classed as vulnerable.
I do wonder if this goes on too long that the fireman's the postman's and the shopworker's kids will all be at Oxford and Cambridge whilst those belonging to the stockbroker, the lawyer and the business executive will all be on the scrapheap.
Regarding the issues that are behind this, which I referred to on the previous thread. Schools want to be treated the same as other venues where people congregate. If the rule is weaker in schools then schools will not return. The government deliberately singled out schools as needing weaker protection, yet they have produced no evidence that this is science based. If they do, and if schools are treated equally, they will likely return in a greater way before September. If they aren’t, they won’t. This is not radical, it is not anything that reactionaries in the press are claiming. It is a public health issue, as backed up by the British Medical Association.
It looks like she would be a good candidate in 2024 but does she help with African American turnout? On the other hand should you bet against a junior Senator from Illinois?
She might not need to help with African American turnout. Biden is well placed there. Would Kamal Harris, the favourite, help with African Amerian turnout? Is it simply colour?
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly
It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.
But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
Maybe because the rate will be considerably higher in a densely-populated area with a highly-transient population like New York City compared to the overall rate.
There is a huge difference to what the two models think R was pre-lockdown.
Be interesting to know if Cambridge model is wrong on R, how that affects their predictions on how many people have had it.
For real fun and games, Imperial have another version of that graph (for the whole UK). Which looks completely different again and starts off at a far higher R!
I do not want to be personal but why do you seem to delight in bad news
Are you so poisoned by Brexit you want this country to fail to satisfy your despair
It is tragic if so
I don't think it's personal - it's just a subscription to a shitposting service that someone signed up to a long time ago but has no idea how to cancel.
I reckon the more the public see of the troop of lightweights that Johnson has packed his cabinet with at these press events, the more unpopular his government will become.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
Countries seem to be moving ahead quite strongly with reopening borders and lifting lockdowns, even if they are planning them ahead and instituting stringent safety measures. I am wondering if they have access to data that predicts some sort of fizzle out effect. You are right that London has dropped off dramatically, and it seems likely that lockdown has been less effective there due to a higher population density, people sharing parks, travelling by public transport etc
So there are secret data indicating a "fizzle out effect" and - despite the desperation of all governments to get back to normal - there's a conspiracy not to tell anyone?
No I just suspect that governments have access to research that hasn't yet entered the public domain. Who knows what Porton Down is up to? It may just be the economic imperative driving it, though, rather than confidence that it is on the way out.
We know exactly what Porton Down is up to. They're doing the antibody testing as part of the ONS antigen/antibody survey, the antigen results of which are already being published.
Indeed, under the Confidence Building Measures of the Biological Weapons Convention, we do know what the MOD side of Porton Down is working on. CBM A Part 2 deals with the programme, and an update has already been submitted this year.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly
It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.
But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
It could be because substantially all have been infected or are immune.
You almost seem to be trying to execute a pincer movement of mutually exclusive nonsense.
On the one hand, you're telling us a large percentage of the population may be immune. On the other, you're telling us 100% of the population of New York City may have been infected!
I said infected or immune in the sense that they can cope with light viral loads. 100% of New Yorkers may have been exposed to the virus. 0.25% of them died.
EDIT: It obviously depends what you mean by "fatality rate". You seem quite passionate and defensive about this and push back vigourously on any questioning in spite of the uncertainty and unknowns.
If you read the article we're discussing, you'll see that the 0.24-0.26% is based on a project in German based on testing (from memory, a combination of antigen and antibody testing). That's how the German professor is defining fatality rate - an infection fatality rate, based on how many people have tested positive.
To suggest that 100% of the population of New York City have been infected in this sense is completely untenable.
I reckon the more the public see of the troop of lightweights that Johnson has packed his cabinet with at these press events, the more unpopular his government will become.
That's what people always say about governments and opposition, but it doesn't seem to make that much difference. Events, and all that.
That last graphic is really nice, although inclding every date on the x-axis and labelling the day for every curve just distracts from the overall message.
I reckon the more the public see of the troop of lightweights that Johnson has packed his cabinet with at these press events, the more unpopular his government will become.
That's what people always say about governments and opposition, but it doesn't seem to make that much difference. Events, and all that.
I reckon the more the public see of the troop of lightweights that Johnson has packed his cabinet with at these press events, the more unpopular his government will become.
To be honest the progress through reducing lockdown and success or otherwise are most likely the factors for HMG government rather than 'lightweights' in the cabinet, and to be honest Patel and Williamson are dreadful
There is a huge difference to what the two models think R was pre-lockdown.
Be interesting to know if Cambridge model is wrong on R, how that affects their predictions on how many people have had it.
For real fun and games, Imperial have another version of that graph (for the whole UK). Which looks completely different again and starts off at a far higher R!
I reckon the more the public see of the troop of lightweights that Johnson has packed his cabinet with at these press events, the more unpopular his government will become.
It really is low quality- Williamson, Patel, Sharma, Shapps, Jendrick... the Tories have much more quality wasted in their back benches.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly
It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.
But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
Maybe because the rate will be considerably higher in a densely-populated area with a highly-transient population like New York City compared to the overall rate.
What rate?
The IFR could be higher if you live in a city. More likely to be BAME, more likely to get a higher viral load, poorer health, effects of pollution,
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly
It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.
But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
It could be because substantially all have been infected or are immune.
You almost seem to be trying to execute a pincer movement of mutually exclusive nonsense.
On the one hand, you're telling us a large percentage of the population may be immune. On the other, you're telling us 100% of the population of New York City may have been infected!
I said infected or immune in the sense that they can cope with light viral loads. 100% of New Yorkers may have been exposed to the virus. 0.25% of them died.
EDIT: It obviously depends what you mean by "fatality rate". You seem quite passionate and defensive about this and push back vigourously on any questioning in spite of the uncertainty and unknowns.
If you read the article we're discussing, you'll see that the 0.24-0.26% is based on a project in German based on testing (from memory, a combination of antigen and antibody testing). That's how the German professor is defining fatality rate - an infection fatality rate, based on how many people have tested positive.
To suggest that 100% of the population of New York City have been infected in this sense is completely untenable.
To be fair, the article quoting him was published 11 days ago, so the contradiction between his claims and the NYC data wouldn't have been quite so blatant then. Still pretty blatant, though.
There is a huge difference to what the two models think R was pre-lockdown.
Be interesting to know if Cambridge model is wrong on R, how that affects their predictions on how many people have had it.
For real fun and games, Imperial have another version of that graph (for the whole UK). Which looks completely different again and starts off at a far higher R!
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly
It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.
But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
Maybe because the rate will be considerably higher in a densely-populated area with a highly-transient population like New York City compared to the overall rate.
What rate?
The IFR could be higher if you live in a city. More likely to be BAME, more likely to get a higher viral load, poorer health, effects of pollution,
No matter how much special pleading you invoke, this estimate of 0.24-0.26% is simply incredible.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
Countries seem to be moving ahead quite strongly with reopening borders and lifting lockdowns, even if they are planning them ahead and instituting stringent safety measures. I am wondering if they have access to data that predicts some sort of fizzle out effect. You are right that London has dropped off dramatically, and it seems likely that lockdown has been less effective there due to a higher population density, people sharing parks, travelling by public transport etc
So there are secret data indicating a "fizzle out effect" and - despite the desperation of all governments to get back to normal - there's a conspiracy not to tell anyone?
No I just suspect that governments have access to research that hasn't yet entered the public domain. Who knows what Porton Down is up to? It may just be the economic imperative driving it, though, rather than confidence that it is on the way out.
We know exactly what Porton Down is up to. They're doing the antibody testing as part of the ONS antigen/antibody survey, the antigen results of which are already being published.
If anything it's the economic data that's likely to drive them to push for a faster reopening, rather than some sort of "fizzle out".. which I agree is for the birds.
It looks like she would be a good candidate in 2024 but does she help with African American turnout? On the other hand should you bet against a junior Senator from Illinois?
She might not need to help with African American turnout. Biden is well placed there. Would Kamal Harris, the favourite, help with African Amerian turnout? Is it simply colour?
He needs to flip white rural voters from Trump in sufficient numbers to turn the states that just tipped Trump.
Hopefully, Biden will take Bill Clinton's advice on reaching out there rather than HRC's team of data jockeys who didn't even have her visit Wisconsin once.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
It "fizzles out"?
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
Look at the death and infection rate in London dropping dramatically compared with other parts of the country even though the lock down measures are much the same. The apparent infection rate isn't high enough to explain the differential reduction. An "iceberg effect" is.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
A German professor of virology thinks that it's only moderately deadly
It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
He thinks the fatality rate is 0.24-0.26%.
But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
Maybe because the rate will be considerably higher in a densely-populated area with a highly-transient population like New York City compared to the overall rate.
What rate?
The IFR could be higher if you live in a city. More likely to be BAME, more likely to get a higher viral load, poorer health, effects of pollution,
No matter how much special pleading you invoke, this estimate of 0.24-0.26% is simply incredible.
If you just look at Germany, ignore care home data, and over 65 data, maybe?
Patel’s thanks to those non Brits working in the NHS during the pandemic is to up their yearly fees for healthcare . And to foreign social care workers the message is your’re not wanted !
Everyone is in favour of *safely* reopening the schools but Adonis begs the question.
People keep saying re-open schools, but they've never been closed, my niece is a teacher and she is there working with the key worker's kids and some of those classed as vulnerable.
I do wonder if this goes on too long that the fireman's the postman's and the shopworker's kids will all be at Oxford and Cambridge whilst those belonging to the stockbroker, the lawyer and the business executive will all be on the scrapheap.
Regarding the issues that are behind this, which I referred to on the previous thread. Schools want to be treated the same as other venues where people congregate. If the rule is weaker in schools then schools will not return. The government deliberately singled out schools as needing weaker protection, yet they have produced no evidence that this is science based. If they do, and if schools are treated equally, they will likely return in a greater way before September. If they aren’t, they won’t. This is not radical, it is not anything that reactionaries in the press are claiming. It is a public health issue, as backed up by the British Medical Association.
That is all.
"Schools want to be treated the same as other venues where people congregate."
I think this is a sticking point that eventually is going to have to get bulldozed through. Different venues will end up getting treated differently not because of differences in their risks, but differences in the benefits of reopening them (or more bluntly, the costs of them being closed).
On a purely scientific basis, it might be identified that the school system and entertainment venues (as a purely hypothetical example) are similarly unsafe in terms of contributing comparably to transmissions. But it isn't "illogical", as some people claim, to keep entertainment venues closed while trying to more of the school system up and running again (with some extra social distancing measures, compulsory hand-washing, adapted timetable, more thorough cleaning rota etc) because the damage done to society by a (largely) closed school system exceeds the damage done by by a closed entertainment sector.
Every little bit of restarting society and the economy makes an additional contribution to raising R, which is a bugger. It's pretty similar to the classical knapsack problem" ("Given a set of items, each with a weight and a value, determine the number of each item to include in a collection so that the total weight is less than or equal to a given limit and the total value is as large as possible"). One thing I've seen people moan a lot about is "how come it's now okay to have estate agent viewings and to move house, but I can't invite family around, isn't that completely inconsistent?" But with only a few thousand people likely to be moving around, compared to millions of family reunions, the "weight" (contribution to R) is minimal and the "value" of getting the property market somewhat unstuck is deemed sufficient high (we do want people to be able to move for work, especially key workers, and moves to enable family caring solutions outside care homes may also be desirable).
You can try to reopen things in a way that reduces their "weight" while only reducing their social value as little as possible, but that only works up to an extent. Face-to-face teaching is something sufficiently valuable that it's an obvious priority to go back in the knapsack and even with a lot of thought going into preventative measures it's going to be a heavy one.
Protection for teachers, particularly teachers in higher-risk groups, is a valid issue and something unions are right to flag up.
(A complication of the "knacksack" model of restarting society is I don't think that the effect on R of reopening both X and Y is just the sum of the effects of X and Y - by changing the social mixing matrix in two ways you end up creating new transmission routes. But I don't think the analogy is a bad one overall.)
From a 2017 Guardian review of Laura Spinner's Pale Rider, a history of the Spanish flu:
"Spinney’s important book does not attempt to offer light reading. No less than four pandemics are predicted in the 21st century. At least one will take the form of flu. Vaccination is not cheap, because the flu virus is constantly mutating. Annual vaccines currently offer the best protection. Britain does still possess a National Health Service. "
"The enduring message of Spinney’s magisterial work is to underline just how crucial that remarkable service is to the future security of an unusually privileged nation. Let’s hope the author’s book is read with care by Theresa May."
Flu vaccine uptake in the UK is high, but not sufficiently higher than other countries to conclude that it is all due to the blessed church of the Holy NHS
The big problem with anyone at these press conferences is the lack of trust that stems from the disastrous start to the response, resulting in that lost week and toying with letting the virus spread.
As such, why believe anything they say now? You make such a big error and trust is in very short supply,
This is one of the real contrasts with places like New Zealand and Denmark. They acted early and decisively. The UK response has been late and weak.
Comments
FPT: on the Welsh Government and Groups of 2. The original Corona Regs stated "gatherings of not more than two may not..." so allowed them.
I have no idea whether it has changed, because the system that should doc. the law in Wales is as confused as Mark Drakeford himself.
Which makes it a bothersome sort of day for some.
Just like the Jamaican Olympic 100m team in London 2012.
Trend since peak
Series
JohnLilburne said:
» show previous quotes
Surely it means Nicola is safe in post until someone else named after a fish comes along
Salmond II coming to a parliament near you soon
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
I assume the models and interpretation of testing data are taking this possibility into account?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/05/elizabeth-warren-biden-vice-president/611497/
As well as the many political arguments in her favour, there is an emotional tie.
"Warren told me about a call she received from Biden the morning after her brother died [in April]. Their conversation was “one person who’d lost loved ones trying to console another person who just lost her beloved brother,” she said.
Connections formed in grief tend to stay with Biden. This one has certainly stayed with Warren."
I go through that on here sometimes.
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1261659858048372736?s=20
Can you explain where you think it "fizzled out" - I mean somewhere where extreme measures weren't adopted to stop it from spreading?
The denialist loonies seem to be adopting this idea of "it never infects a very high proportion of the population" as a kind of magical riposte to the basic laws of epidemiology. It somehow magically stops of its own accord. But is there actually any evidence to suggest it stops of its own accord, rather than being stopped by extreme counter-measures?
She is fairly mainstream in the Democrat party - think Biden (who is on the right of the Dems*) would want to reach towards the New Left?
*That means he is to the right of the current UK government.
Sánchez wants it to be extended for a month, instead of the customary two weeks. The current extension is due to expire in a week's time.
Look at the effect in China as it comes out of lockdown. The reported overall infection rate is low. The virus is still there. It is not growing exponentially. Perhaps there is a large number of people with strong immune systems.
I'm just asking questions. I'm not denying anything. I'm very open minded on this. Just probing conventional wisdom in a situation of a lot of unknowns.
We have a chance to rethink things here in various areas and the tendency to want the same as before is going to hamper ways forward. The exam system, the approach to disadvantaged students, the use of technology etc., all of these areas are ready to be made anew and better. Break it down, build it up.
BJO along to tell us that is really shite in 5, 4, 3.....
https://youtu.be/yixdveuf0GQ
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1261633870442700800?s=20
https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/
It doesn't seem to justify locking up the innocent, er sorry 'the healthy'.
We drew 2-2 with Middlesbrough
But as usual, he doesn't explain how, in that case, 0.25% of the entire population of New York City could already have been killed by the virus.
1. She has lots of well thought out plans including for Covid-19 and is articulate in explaining them (in contrast to both presidential candidates).
2. She is bursting with energy and commitment bringing fizz and money to the campaign. (Contrast that with Kamala Harris the favourite)
3. She is to the left of Biden and can attract many Bernie supporters.
4. Obama rates her (read the article) and Biden listens to Obama.
Guess it depends where the numbers go now - we don't seem to have much room for error.
This is just irrational nonsense.
On the one hand, you're telling us a large percentage of the population may be immune. On the other, you're telling us 100% of the population of New York City may have been infected!
I do wonder if this goes on too long that the fireman's the postman's and the shopworker's kids will all be at Oxford and Cambridge whilst those belonging to the stockbroker, the lawyer and the business executive will all be on the scrapheap.
0.4% is little more justification for putting me under house arrest than 0.25%. People who are terrified of it are still free to stay at home and not visit friends or relatives.
But it would be good if the government would ask someone like Spiegelhalter to advise them on risk comparison and management. At the moment, they appear not much more knowledgeable than Mrs Jones next door, aged 48, who thinks that she may well die if she goes down the shops.
The NHS already is supposed to be managed this way, by NICE costing the risks and benefits of different treatments. This was suddenly discarded in a blind panic.
EDIT: It obviously depends what you mean by "fatality rate". You seem quite passionate and defensive about this and push back vigourously on any questioning in spite of the uncertainty and unknowns.
The Roche Antibody test is finding detectable antibodies in nearly everyone proven to have it.
Until we have population antibody tests with such a reliable test we really cannot know.
Not high enough to generate the "iceberg effect" that gets us towards herd immunity faster and slams the brakes on new infections.
But not so low to prevent there being chains of asymptomatic transmission which bugger up "play-to-win whack-a-mole" strategies based on contact tracing. (A different context since there the vast majority of infections are asymptomatic, but this is one of the reasons polio has proven to be a tough nut to crack. Plenty of places where the virus is still being detected in human sewage despite no recorded cases for years.)
I hope to be wrong and this isn't on any more of a scientific basis than the mere observation of both high and low estimates of asymptomatic infections still being circulated by their proponents.
That is all.
Are you so poisoned by Brexit you want this country to fail to satisfy your despair
It is tragic if so
https://mrc-ide.github.io/covid19estimates/#/details/United_Kingdom
https://bwc-ecbm.unog.ch/confidence-building-measure-part-2/uk-mod-biological-defence-research-and-development-programme-0
To suggest that 100% of the population of New York City have been infected in this sense is completely untenable.
You have to squint to actually see the brown, dwarfed as it is by a blue wave of 100,000s of predicted casualties.
Hopefully, Biden will take Bill Clinton's advice on reaching out there rather than HRC's team of data jockeys who didn't even have her visit Wisconsin once.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1261672792484917248?s=21
I think this is a sticking point that eventually is going to have to get bulldozed through. Different venues will end up getting treated differently not because of differences in their risks, but differences in the benefits of reopening them (or more bluntly, the costs of them being closed).
On a purely scientific basis, it might be identified that the school system and entertainment venues (as a purely hypothetical example) are similarly unsafe in terms of contributing comparably to transmissions. But it isn't "illogical", as some people claim, to keep entertainment venues closed while trying to more of the school system up and running again (with some extra social distancing measures, compulsory hand-washing, adapted timetable, more thorough cleaning rota etc) because the damage done to society by a (largely) closed school system exceeds the damage done by by a closed entertainment sector.
Every little bit of restarting society and the economy makes an additional contribution to raising R, which is a bugger. It's pretty similar to the classical knapsack problem" ("Given a set of items, each with a weight and a value, determine the number of each item to include in a collection so that the total weight is less than or equal to a given limit and the total value is as large as possible"). One thing I've seen people moan a lot about is "how come it's now okay to have estate agent viewings and to move house, but I can't invite family around, isn't that completely inconsistent?" But with only a few thousand people likely to be moving around, compared to millions of family reunions, the "weight" (contribution to R) is minimal and the "value" of getting the property market somewhat unstuck is deemed sufficient high (we do want people to be able to move for work, especially key workers, and moves to enable family caring solutions outside care homes may also be desirable).
You can try to reopen things in a way that reduces their "weight" while only reducing their social value as little as possible, but that only works up to an extent. Face-to-face teaching is something sufficiently valuable that it's an obvious priority to go back in the knapsack and even with a lot of thought going into preventative measures it's going to be a heavy one.
Protection for teachers, particularly teachers in higher-risk groups, is a valid issue and something unions are right to flag up.
(A complication of the "knacksack" model of restarting society is I don't think that the effect on R of reopening both X and Y is just the sum of the effects of X and Y - by changing the social mixing matrix in two ways you end up creating new transmission routes. But I don't think the analogy is a bad one overall.)
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/adult-flu-vaccination-coverage
As such, why believe anything they say now? You make such a big error and trust is in very short supply,
This is one of the real contrasts with places like New Zealand and Denmark. They acted early and decisively. The UK response has been late and weak.