Generic Virus Thread

[Demitri_C]

26 minutes ago, Villarocker said:

Following on from my post earlier today, regarding my son. I followed my doctors advice and went online - govuk - to book a Covid-19 test. I can't believe how easy and quick it was. Booked 3 tests for us as a family, went through pretty quick and got a message earlier to say they'll be here tomorrow. We have to book a collection which will happen in 24 hours and apparently we will know the results in around 48 hours after that. Hopefully, they will all be clear and then I'll go back to work next Tuesday. 

Great news best of luck with it. Hope all goes well mate.

Good to hear its a easy system. At least they are getting some things right

[Keyblade]

On 20/05/2020 at 12:47, sne said:

Ramadan coming to an end and the Eid al-Fitr celebration in a few days. Not sure how the Muslim world will handle that this year.

The UK seems very odd if what people are reporting is true. Here in Canada we've canceled all prayers big and small, the mosques are empty. On Eid, nobody's doing anything. Even Mecca is empty.

[mjmooney]

14 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

The UK seems very odd if what people are reporting is true. Here in Canada we've canceled all prayers big and small, the mosques are empty. On Eid, nobody's doing anything. Even Mecca is empty.

This is England. Full of thick clearings in the woods. Muslims included. 

[Dom_Wren]

Soccer club I work for is getting back on the fields June 1. Heavily restricted, but back none the less.

[Jareth]

12 hours ago, snowychap said:

Cheers.

That's a response to that one specific article, what is the response to the other doubts and questions raised by others?

Indeed, which was rather my point.

Forbes article fed all other articles on the subject. They are the same criticisms based on the Forbes story which is why they responded to the Forbes article. Promising means it is safe to proceed to human trials, if you read the details on what it has done to the virus in monkeys then promising also means it stops pneumonia with one dose. Promising also means that this is on a single dose, and that doubling, tripling it may mean even better results. Promising also means they have data now on human trials which has convinced the US to invest 1 Billion in it. But by all means find it unpromising if you wish. 

BTW - if you were offered a shot of a vaccine, say this one, in October - would you accept it? Or wait? 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Jareth

[limpid]

47 minutes ago, Jareth said:

BTW - if you were offered a shot of a vaccine, say this one, in October - would you accept it? Or wait? 

Depends if there are any viable antibody tests available by then.

[sne]

Quote

Italy virus death toll could be 19,000 higher than reported

Italy's death toll from the novel coronavirus in March and April could be nearly 19,000 higher than the official figure of 32,000, the national social security agency said Thursday.

The Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS), the largest social security and welfare institute in Italy, said in a new study that the official death figures were not "reliable".

Its study showed that 156,429 total deaths were recorded in Italy in March and April, which is 46,909 higher than the average number of fatalities in those months recorded between 2015 and 2019.

But only 27,938 deaths linked to coronavirus were reported during that period by the Civil Protection Agency, whose toll forms the basis of national statistics, the INPS said.

That meant there were 18,971 more deaths than normal during this period, with the vast majority of 18,412 recorded in the coronavirus-ravaged north of the country.

"Given the fact that the number of deaths is quite stable in these times, we can -- with necessary caution -- attribute a large portion of these deaths during these past two months to the epidemic," the INPS said.

It added that the increase in deaths was likely not only due to the disease, but from people suffering from other illnesses unable to get healthcare due to hospitals being overwhelmed by the coronavirus pandemic.

As of Friday, the pandemic has claimed 32,486 deaths in Italy, of which 26,715 have been in Lombardy alone -- Europe's worst affected region.

https://afp.omni.se/italy-virus-death-toll-could-be-19-000-higher-than-reported-agency/a/AdoJWE

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Jareth said:

Forbes article fed all other articles on the subject. They are the same criticisms based on the Forbes story which is why they responded to the Forbes article.

You're going to have to provide some evidence to support that. It would simply appear to be a convenient assumption on your part, otherwise.

It's a different thing to say that the criticisms from a Forbes article have been included in other articles to the point where the only source for any and all other articles and 'criticisms' expressed was that article.

The Torygraph piece refers to the Forbes article but it also quotes other experts, including 'Eleanor Riley, professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease at the University of Edinburgh' who said 'there was both good and bad news in the most [sic] monkey trials'.

Your claim above is that this expert also merely based her 'criticisms' (as opposed to analysis) on the Forbes article rather than her own reading of the trial results.

Edit: There are other articles that quote other scientists questioning the results of the monkey trials (btw, weren't those monkey trials carried out at NIH, where Dr Van Doremalen works?).

1 hour ago, Jareth said:

 Promising means it is safe to proceed to human trials, if you read the details on what it has done to the virus in monkeys then promising also means it stops pneumonia with one dose. Promising also means that this is on a single dose, and that doubling, tripling it may mean even better results. Promising also means they have data now on human trials which has convinced the US to invest 1 Billion in it. But by all means find it unpromising if you wish.

Do you actually ever bother to read what someone else posts?

Did I say I find it 'unpromising'? No, I didn't.

In response to you saying, "...it's as promising as any vaccine", I said, "Indeed, which was rather my point."

So, I recognise that it is indeed promising (not as you have claimed in your post 'unpromising') but as promising as any other vaccine [at the same stages & with other standard provisos applied].

It's really unhelpful if you're not going to even bother to try and understand the points being made.

Edit 2: 'doubling, tripling it may mean...' - it may mean a whole lot of things. Until larger doses have been tested appropriately, then making assumptions on what they 'may mean' are just that making assumptions on what they 'may mean'.

1 hour ago, Jareth said:

BTW - if you were offered a shot of a vaccine, say this one, in October - would you accept it? Or wait? 

I'll repost what i said the other day:

On 18/05/2020 at 10:13, snowychap said:

On the vaccines themselves, I am absolutely not any sort of anti-vaxxer or conspiracy nut on the topic (Gates microchips and all that bollocks) but I'd be very cautious about taking a vaccine that has been rushed through trials without clear indications and evidence that the speeding up of the processes and stages has not adversely impacted upon the safety assessments.

So, would I? I don't know yet. Quite possibly not.

I am really worried by people's attitudes to the development of potential treatments and vaccines, though - it has become almost tribal in nature. Far, far too much of the reporting of them and the public clamour is a long ay away from the 'cautiously optimistic' tone that would appear to be the consensus in the scientific community, i.e. away from those with a particular vested interest - like those directly involved in the devlopment and testing of a specific treatment or vaccine or against it.

The only vested interest that should count is the worldwide one for getting an effective and safe (and that's not just safe to take but safe to take with no long-term serious adverse effects) treatment and/or vaccine available to everyone.

Edited May 22, 2020 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

16 hours ago, KentVillan said:

https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/

 

Went back to read this article again, and noticed this humdinger:

'Asked what her updated estimate for the Infection Fatality Rate is, Professor Gupta says, “I think that the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in this country so I think it would be definitely less than 1 in 1000 and probably closer to 1 in 10,000.” That would be somewhere between 0.1% and 0.01%.'

55,000 x 10,000 is 550 million. The population of the UK is less than 70 million. It's hard to respect to somebody's opinion when they're in the media making errors like that. 

[Genie]

32 minutes ago, sne said:

Italy's death toll from the novel coronavirus in March and April could be nearly 19,000 higher than the official figure of 32,000, the national social security agency said Thursday.

The Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS), the largest social security and welfare institute in Italy, said in a new study that the official death figures were not "reliable".

Its study showed that 156,429 total deaths were recorded in Italy in March and April, which is 46,909 higher than the average number of fatalities in those months recorded between 2015 and 2019.

I think that’s similar with us in the UK, and probably everywhere else. The total number of additional deaths in the UK for the time of year is about another 20k higher than those confirmed with the virus. 

[Jareth]

31 minutes ago, snowychap said:

You're going to have to provide some evidence to support that. It would simply appear to be a convenient assumption on your part, otherwise.

It's a different thing to say that the criticisms from a Forbes article have been included in other articles to the point where the only source for any and all other articles and 'criticisms' expressed was that article.

The Torygraph piece refers to the Forbes article but it also quotes other experts, including 'Eleanor Riley, professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease at the University of Edinburgh' who said 'there was both good and bad news in the most [sic] monkey trials'.

Your claim above is that this expert also merely based her 'criticisms' (as opposed to analysis) on the Forbes article rather than her own reading of the trial results.

Edit: There are other articles that quote other scientists questioning the results of the monkey trials (btw, weren't those monkey trials carried out at NIH, where Dr Van Doremalen works?).

Do you actually ever bother to read what someone else posts?

Did I say I find it 'unpromising'? No, I didn't.

In response to you saying, "...it's as promising as any vaccine", I said, "Indeed, which was rather my point."

So, I recognise that it is indeed promising (not as you have claimed in your post 'unpromising') but as promising as any other vaccine [at the same stages & with other standard provisos applied].

It's really unhelpful if you're not going to even bother to try and understand the points being made.

Edit 2: 'doubling, tripling it may mean...' - it may mean a whole lot of things. Until larger doses have been tested appropriately, then making assumptions on what they 'may mean' are just that making assumptions on what they 'may mean'.

I'll repost what i said the other day:

So, would I? I don't know yet. Quite possibly not.

I am really worried by people's attitudes to the development of potential treatments and vaccines, though - it has become almost tribal in nature. Far, far too much of the reporting of them and the public clamour is a long ay away from the 'cautiously optimistic' tone that would appear to be the consensus in the scientific community, i.e. away from those with a particular vested interest - like those directly involved in the devlopment and testing of a specific treatment or vaccine or against it.

The only vested interest that should count is the worldwide one for getting an effective and safe (and that's not just safe to take but safe to take with no long-term serious adverse effects) treatment and/or vaccine available to everyone.

There's genuinely too much here to reply to, I'm not even sure if we're not saying the same thing. Possibly. I'm interested in the Oxford vaccine in particular because it's in our country - it's been a long time in the making unlike many others, and today it's been announced there's now a 10,000+ person trial of over 55s and children, all over the UK. No safety trials skipped, and huge investment going into it - and they maintain their target of supplying from September. I'm cynical about who the messenger when it's either big pharma or politicians talking - but the main facts on this vaccine have come from the scientists who've spent years on the technology behind it, and if it is eventually proven effective - I'll certainly be getting a jab. But each to their own!

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, Jareth said:

if it is eventually proven effective - I'll certainly be getting a jab. But each to their own

Oh, ffs!

5 minutes ago, Jareth said:

There's genuinely too much here to reply to

And to read, too, it seems.

[mjmooney]

5 minutes ago, Genie said:

I think that’s similar with us in the UK, and probably everywhere else. The total number of additional deaths in the UK for the time of year is about another 20k higher than those confirmed with the virus. 

I keep banging on about this one. Never mind test results, death certificate causes, etc. - it's the best broad brush indication of the impact of the pandemic - including all the 'collateral damage' caused by cancelled treatment for other conditions, suicides, etc. It tells us the impact of COVID-19, and how well or badly we've managed it. 

[snowychap]

6 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I'm interested in the Oxford vaccine in particular because it's in our country

That's really quite worrying.

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

Oh, ffs!

Is this basically a debate about trusting vaccines? 

[snowychap]

6 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Is this basically a debate about trusting vaccines? 

No, it isn't - and that this is your reply suggests that you didn't read what I wrote.

Why should I bother writing anything more if you're not going to bother to read it let alone try to understand it?

Edited May 22, 2020 by snowychap

[Jareth]

10 minutes ago, snowychap said:

No, it isn't - and that this is your reply suggests that you didn't read what I wrote.

Why should I bother writing anything more if you're not going to bother to read it let alone try to understand it?

Well I read all of it - I had some spare time - and yes I'm still confused. Best to call it quits!

[trekka]

We had an "all staff dial-in" during the week.  The main headline was (quoting Bill and Ted) to "Be Excellent to Each Other".  

Edited May 22, 2020 by trekka

[bannedfromHandV]

2 hours ago, Jareth said:

Forbes article fed all other articles on the subject. They are the same criticisms based on the Forbes story which is why they responded to the Forbes article. Promising means it is safe to proceed to human trials, if you read the details on what it has done to the virus in monkeys then promising also means it stops pneumonia with one dose. Promising also means that this is on a single dose, and that doubling, tripling it may mean even better results. Promising also means they have data now on human trials which has convinced the US to invest 1 Billion in it. But by all means find it unpromising if you wish. 

BTW - if you were offered a shot of a vaccine, say this one, in October - would you accept it? Or wait? 

I was going to ask a similar question on here yesterday.

If a vaccine suddenly became miraculously available in the coming months, would you take it? Me - no, I wouldn't.

Perhaps I'm naive or arrogant but I'm not living in fear of the virus and I certainly wouldn't take a vaccine that cannot possibly have had the long term effects reviewed and analysed.

In fact that's my big concern on this right now, that a vaccine is rushed out and consumed en masse without the full and proper testing, all for something that has less than a 1% chance of killing you.

[Seat68]

3 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I was going to ask a similar question on here yesterday.

If a vaccine suddenly became miraculously available in the coming months, would you take it? Me - no, I wouldn't.

Perhaps I'm naive or arrogant but I'm not living in fear of the virus and I certainly wouldn't take a vaccine that cannot possibly have had the long term effects reviewed and analysed.

In fact that's my big concern on this right now, that a vaccine is rushed out and consumed en masse without the full and proper testing, all for something that has less than a 1% chance of killing you.

I think I would. I would be concerned if I planned to have more children, but that aside I think I probably would take a leap into the dark.