Generic Virus Thread

[Awol]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

This test is not going to tell that, is it?

If antibodies are present yes, because that’s when I was sick.

 

[mjmooney]

16 minutes ago, Awol said:

Times and Telegraph both carrying the story that Roche have developed a 100% accurate anti body test. Porton Down have checked and approved it, PHE talking to Roche. Hopefully we can soon get a handle on how many people have actually had the virus.  

Now very curious to know if I had it last December.

Same. Me and the missus were pretty poorly with many of the symptoms over Xmas. She's almost sure it was corona. I'm not. 

[Awol]

1 minute ago, mjmooney said:

Same. Me and the missus were pretty poorly with many of the symptoms over Xmas. She's almost sure it was corona. I'm not. 

Yep, you, me and a few others had this conversation about 100 pages ago. I remember b/c neither of us could drink on Christmas Day! 

[Awol]

This doesn’t look great though. 

[snowychap]

27 minutes ago, Awol said:

If antibodies are present yes, because that’s when I was sick.

Erm.

Will antibodies still be present six months after you were sick and if they are present what will they say with regard to (any/lasting) immunity?

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

If antibodies are present yes, because that’s when I was sick.

Not to be too pernickety, but it won't and can't tell you *when* you were sick, even if you have antobodies, since there are many asymptomatic infections.

[Awol]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Erm.

Will antibodies still be present six months after you were sick and if they are present what will they say with regard to (any/lasting) immunity?

I would hope they’d still be present (if they were there in the first place) and I don’t know if they would provide lasting/any immunity. No one does yet. 
 

Edit: obviously the same goes for anyone who has or thinks they may have already had it. The fact there now seems to be a reliable test is the rather more important bit. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Awol

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

This doesn’t look great though. 

I just came to the thread to post the same thing. For those who haven't read the Twitter thread, antibody testing has been done in Spain, France and Indiana, and the results suggest very few people have caught the virus:

• France roughly 4% of the population with antibodies
• Spain around 5% nationally, with no regions over 15%
• US state of Indiana 2.8%

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

I would hope they’d still be present (if they were there in the first place) and I don’t know if they would provide lasting/any immunity. No one does yet. 
 

Edit: obviously the same goes for anyone who has or thinks they may have already had it. The fact there now seems to be a reliable test is the rather more important bit. 

The important bit is not whether anyone has already had it but if they have what does that mean, i.e. what level of immunity and when/how antibody tests have any relevance.

Edited May 14, 2020 by snowychap

[LondonLax]

7 hours ago, Genie said:

 

I agree with the first part. Several people have suggested that the NHS are not treating elderly or vulnerable people because of government advice. I don’t believe that personally. The government have also said many times they have never been over run and have lots of capacity to treat people with Covid 19 so why would that be? It doesn’t add up in my view.

Could it be that the reason there is hospital capacity is because the NHS was following government advice and not treating the oldest patients?

[Genie]

47 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Could it be that the reason there is hospital capacity is because the NHS was following government advice and not treating the oldest patients?

Where is this government advice, and what is the cutoff for being old?

[LondonLax]

50 minutes ago, Genie said:

Where is this government advice, and what is the cutoff for being old?

There has been plenty of posts about the triaging policies throughout this thread. 

[bickster]

45 minutes ago, Genie said:

Where is this government advice, and what is the cutoff for being old?

NICE guidelines as of 25h March

Quote

NICE updates rapid COVID-19 guideline on critical care

We have listened to concerns raised by patient groups about the application of our rapid COVID-19 critical care guideline.

25 March 2020

•  

The guideline said that all adults on admission to hospital, irrespective of COVID-19 status, should be assessed for frailty using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and that comorbidities and underlying health conditions should be considered.

Quote

These guidelines have been developed to maximise patient safety whilst making the best use of NHS resources and protecting staff from infection. The guideline has been developed using the interim process and methods for developing rapid guidelines on COVID-19 and recommendations are based on evidence and expert opinion.  Because we are using a different approach in order to develop these guidelines quickly to support frontline NHS staff, we will be reviewing them each week as new evidence, policy and practice emerges.

Clinicl Frailty Scale

Quote

Why?

Rapid NICE guidance produced in response to the COVID outbreak clearly outlines the importance of identifying and grading frailty using the Clinical Frailty Scale. The purpose is to identify patients who are at increased risk of poor outcomes and who may not benefit from critical care interventions.

 

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng159/resources/critical-care-admission-algorithm-pdf-8708948893

[Genie]

15 minutes ago, bickster said:

NICE guidelines as of 25h March

Clinicl Frailty Scale

 

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng159/resources/critical-care-admission-algorithm-pdf-8708948893

This is not supporting your claim, as this is what happens to older people when they get to hospital. A similar assessment happens in normal business and it has been revised for Covid-19.

So where is this policy?

Some of the VT off topic regulars seem to suggest it as fact, so it should be possible to share the policy, I'm especially interested because not only does it sound bonkers, it contradicts my own personal experience.

Quote

Old people from care homes NO LONGER go to hospital

 

11 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

The advice, was that anyone ill wouldn’t be helped, an ambulance would not be sent, doctors would not attend. It wasn’t so much they would be sent back to care homes, it was more that they’d never admit them from care homes. They were left for dead. If you were in a care home, you were excluded from basic medical help.

 

Quote

Could it be that the reason there is hospital capacity is because the NHS was following government advice and not treating the oldest patients?

So... where is the government advice / policy that states "old" people are excluded from basic medical treatment on the account of being old? 

[bickster]

35 minutes ago, Genie said:

people when they get to hospital.

and are sent back to the Care Home again, guess what... they don't get sent

[Stevo985]

11 hours ago, Genie said:

I did a poor job of making my initial point, that a “you said one thing now you’re saying something else” was in my view less significant than some of the other enormous mistakes the government have made. I thinking wording on a website, that should have been updated was the lesser of the many crimes they are currently getting away with.

I think "Wording on a website" is rather trivialising the issue though.

They're not just words on a website, they're a record of the government's official advice. The transcript of Boris' speech on Sunday is on the website too, but it there was something glaringly wrong in that speech it wouldn't just be wording on a website. It's what those words are a record of.

The PM lying about what it originally said, and it was a lie it wasn't just saying something different now it was denying what was originally said, is a bigger issue than you're making out, imo.

Your posts seem to be acting like it was just a typo or something that Starmer was taking issue with. The issue wasn't even what was originally said, it was the PM now lying about it (and, fwiw, in doing so making out that Starmer was the one lying when he wasn't)

[Dodgyknees]

10 hours ago, mjmooney said:

Same. Me and the missus were pretty poorly with many of the symptoms over Xmas. She's almost sure it was corona. I'm not. 

Same here. It was like flu but worse, I collapsed and ended up with pneumonia. The symptoms match everything for Coronavirus. 

[Demitri_C]

7 hours ago, snowychap said:

The important bit is not whether anyone has already had it but if they have what does that mean, i.e. what level of immunity and when/how antibody tests have any relevance.

Yes but if x amount of people lets say me you and awol all got the test done all showed that we had it then all were ok for remainder of the year without recapturing covid19 there is some evidence although relatively small, that you couldnt catch it again. Im not sure about everyone else but when i get flu once i recover i dont get it again until the following autumn/winter.

I think this helps in giving people a indictaion if you can reinfected again. No one knows their body better than they do.

Also its a new virus. There is no way they can answer the level of immunity at this stage.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Demitri_C

[Demitri_C]

11 minutes ago, avfcDJ said:

Same here. It was like flu but worse, I collapsed and ended up with pneumonia. The symptoms match everything for Coronavirus. 

Glad to hear your ok now mate that sounds horrific

[Genie]

8 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I think "Wording on a website" is rather trivialising the issue though.

They're not just words on a website, they're a record of the government's official advice. The transcript of Boris' speech on Sunday is on the website too, but it there was something glaringly wrong in that speech it wouldn't just be wording on a website. It's what those words are a record of.

The PM lying about what it originally said, and it was a lie it wasn't just saying something different now it was denying what was originally said, is a bigger issue than you're making out, imo.

Your posts seem to be acting like it was just a typo or something that Starmer was taking issue with. The issue wasn't even what was originally said, it was the PM now lying about it (and, fwiw, in doing so making out that Starmer was the one lying when he wasn't)

I think it was presented in a way that (sadly) gave BJ enough wiggle room to shake it off. "it remains very unlikely that people receiving care in a care home will become infected" was the official advice that Boris said wasn't true. It didn't mention the other caveat that was in the document which BJ states the advice was based on the virus not being present in the community. 

Now BJ probably got lucky in the sense that there was some mitigating circumstances and the quote was not fully in context. Its allowed Johnson to turn it around on Starmer. The 10 o'clock news last night didn't pick the story up.

Nothing would make me happier than seeing BJ and his merry men (and women) get shown up for what they are. I think Starmer possibly wasted a good opportunity here and now they are both going to be extra cautious going forwards.