everyone who has had the infection seems to seroconvert.
If that means everyone who has had the virus tests positive on the antibody test then I disagree. Some people fight off the virus with just T-cell repsonse and many who have had the virus test negative for one reson or another. Just quoting my own doctor.
PCR test pandemic
I read that as 'sercoconvert', had to check it several times in disbelief as there can't be many of those.
Could you tell us what that video is, and why it’s worth a watch @beiciwr64 ?
That makes no sense.
The effect is so age dependent as to be unhelpful really. So yes probably nearer 0.5% (I was tired 🙂 ). In truth I’ve never really worried about it since 1) the denominator is so poorly known and 2) it’s a number that is wrong for everyone because it has such an extreme distribution!
Could you tell us what that video is, and why it’s worth a watch
https://twitter.com/o_rips/status/1312820204846477312
I stopped the first video when he claimed Covid hasn't caused excess mortality anywhere in the world. Trumpian levels of delusion, but in a better fitting suit.
What “COVID fraud scandal” is that @beiciwr64 ? Give us a heads up if you think there’s something worth knowing.
jon kirby's twitter bio...
Father of 4, from England living in Sweden. Founder Live it. If we accept the new abnormal they’ll take all our freedoms away until we have none left.
Most recent post on his twitter feed...
Hi, once and for all I decided to make a thread about viruses, what they are and what they’re not. I’m going to keep adding to this thread, so tweet it many times as it’s important that people understand the truth. Let’s make this go viral
If he was a virologist, epidemiologist, medical scientist or any other 'expert' he doesn't mention it.
That's enough for me - conspiracy theory bollocks.
Give us a heads up if you think there’s something worth knowing.
Plebs only, nothing for you,as you were.
Let’s make this go viral
Ah, so he does understand exponential growth on a log scale. 🙂
You have to treat that ranking table of authorities with some caution - Newark and Sherwood are quite high up due to an outbreak in a prison, the interactive map at local level shows the Nottingham cases are concentrated in the uni areas etc.
So apparently the vaccine is going tp be for over 50s only, unless you are classed as vulnerable, or work for NHS.
It's lucky that absolutely no otherwise healthy younger adults have suffered any ill affects from this..🤔
Well, there won't be the means to give it to everyone at first... so prioritise... health workers, the at risk because of medical conditions, teachers, the elderly, university staff, public transport workers, the over 50s, shop workers, the middle aged, mature university students... all before the otherwise healthy younger adults... no?
You have to treat that ranking table of authorities with some caution
I believe the decision-making now factors in the second derivative of cases as well as incidence of new cases (first derivative). Which is a good thing. Higher and stable may not be quite as bad as lower and rising rapidly from a planning perspective.
If that means everyone who has had the virus tests positive on the antibody test then I disagree. Some people fight off the virus with just T-cell repsonse
Ed, I'm afraid this isn't true. One may (big may) have cross-reactive T-cells, in the adaptive immunity - what they then do is present antigen to stimulate the production of antibodies. The innate (kill it now) part of the immune system isn't really driven by T cells (except the coolest Natural Killer or NK cells that need a signal to get to work from things like Toll-like receptors).
People exposed to the virus develop antibodies - whether those antibodies are responsible for clearing the virus is still being studies. But seroconversion is a good proxy for past exposure. Maybe not immunity (but most likely is on a short timescale of, say 6-12mo).
MCTD - is there a prison in the newark & sherwood area?
I agree there should be prioritization, that was always the case. But the head of UK vaccine task force states that the vaccine will be for over 50s and the group's I mentioned above only. No intention of giving it later to younger folks.
As someone who is mid 40s I've been taking all the precautions as I've repeatedly been told it's a really nasty desease for everyone. You only need to read the exp of some of the folks on here to see that.
Sounds like the plan is to get everyone in the aforementioned groups vaccinated, then let it rip through society freely. I can't see that ending well..
It’s lucky that absolutely no otherwise healthy younger adults have suffered any ill affects from this..🤔
We should have Hunger Games style events with all age groups involved fighting over vials of the vaccine.
Well, the plan can't be to vaccinate people with unavailable vaccines. People need to be ready for there being a big difference between "a vaccine is available" and "a vaccine is available for everyone" ... with probably a 12-18 month difference between the two.
If that Jon bloke is the one I think it is, he does not really appear to have a medical, research or epidemilogical background, rather he seems to be a company director. Not the sort of person I would really want to take medical advice from.
Random mountain bikers on the internet seem, on average, a much better choice.
Genuine question why do so many twitter experts that back brexit & covid deniers etc have 'Forex Trader' in their bios?
Well, the plan can’t be to vaccinate people with unavailable vaccines. People need to be ready for there being a big difference between “a vaccine is available” and “a vaccine is available for everyone” … with probably a 12-18 month difference between the two
Neither of which are what the head of the vaccine council is saying. She is saying the plan is not to vaccinate at all as far as I can tell, not vaccinate when they have enough of the stuff available.
And if that's the case, and the decision has been made that healthy folks under 50 will just have to deal with it, then id challenge why anyone healthy in my age group, key worker or not should be on the list.
Because let's face it, if that's the approach we are all going to get it eventually. Key workers may get it first, but everyone else will be not too far behind.
forex trader = neoliberalisism ideology
from Wikipedia : Neoliberalism is antithetical to the protection of group - rather than individual - interests, for example, that might be achieved through lobbying of groups, or state interventions that protect national interests via tariffs or subsidies. Neoliberalism has moved away from a centrally governed economy
Or what I understand : I'm alright jack, you're on your own.
It's not too late to get a job in a care home or in home care.
Well, the plan can’t be to vaccinate people with unavailable vaccines.
Russia has one.
Frankconway - Lowdham prison is in Newark and Sherwood, local news haven't been covering any other hotspots outside of there and the student parts of Nottingham.
Genuine question why do so many twitter experts that back brexit & covid deniers etc have ‘Forex Trader’ in their bios?
A lot of retail forex trading it done based on systems that demonstrably don't work, but which people believe in.
https://dilbert.com/strip/2015-02-23
I am not surprised there's a correlation with Brexit supports and Covid deniers.
So apparently the vaccine is going tp be for over 50s only, unless you are classed as vulnerable, or work for NHS.
It’s lucky that absolutely no otherwise healthy younger adults have suffered any ill affects from this..🤔
Yeah, tbh it's always been the plan.
It's not a bad plan, assuming that you're looking at it from the perspective of dealing with a crisis, which we are.
This is all back of a napkin stuff I've picked from various ONS reports and the papers, don't quote me on this.
So far only 2% of Deaths from Covid have occurred with people under 50. Based on 42k deaths, that's 41160 over 50 / 840 below.
Of all the people who've died, 91%-92% had underlying heath issues. Of course many older people have a host of heath issues, but then it's thankfully so rare that anyone under 50 would die of Covid that it's possibly safe to assume most had another known health issues?
I've taking from that if we vaccinate everyone over 50 (who wants it) and everyone with a known underlying health issue we will avoid the majority of deaths. Obviously 'Long Covid' sounds shit, but it's the lessor issue at the moment.
If I had to bet on an outcome, I would think that going into Winter 21/22 we'll be vaccinating for Covid in the same way we vaccinate for Flu at the moment, perhaps with a greater onus and it will be a bit more 'normal / real world' than it is now.
The vaccine is unlikely to be 100% successful, Flu vaccines (I'm wary of mixing CV19 with Flu because it's an lazy and inaccurate thing to do but fits here I think) are between 40-60% successful at stopping older people getting flu, but they also reduce the seriousness of the infection.
In reality, Colds and flu kill thousands upon thousands of old people every year. Dying of a cold at 89 because your body has become too frail to fight it off is 'natural causes', everyone dies of something be it heart failure, dementia or an infection etc. That's not to say that Covid19 is 'normal' because it's not, it's more contagious and more deadly than other Coranaviruses, but we will have to learn to live with it.
That said, just like the FLu vaccine, I'm sure once things settle down you'll be able to buy a private Covid vaccine every year, it will also likely be pretty cheap, just like the Flu vaccine.
They may even combine them, because if it can be done, it would make a lot of sense to do so.
Excel has a row limit of 1,048,576 per sheet. That's one unwieldy spreadsheet! I wonder why PHE were even using excel and not a proper database?
Yes, with some form of regular vaccination, and hopefully a bit of favourable mutation/improved treatment, within a couple of years this virus will hopefully simply become one of the handful of seasonal illnesses that normally account for tens of thousands of deaths each winter.
TiRed, do you think the large numbers of people who have been testing negative for Corona virus antibodies 4-6 months after being diagnosed with CV on symptoms (because there were no PCR test available):
1/ had something else not Corona virus?
2/ no longer have high enough levels of antibodies to detect with the Roche test?
3/ recovered without producing enough atibodies to detect? - you've elaborated on the T-cell thing, ta, I just used "T-cell" as shorthand.
I think the antibody tests are missing a lot of cases or people are resisting the virus without producing them in measurable amounts. It's odd that in a medical team the antibody test results don't correlate with those who had symptoms. It's highly likely they were all exposed, some developed symptoms and some have positive antibody tests but not always same people.
It's imortant because if we rely on antibody test results to work out what proportion of the population has already been exposed to the virus we'll underestimate.
Genuine question why do so many twitter experts that back brexit & covid deniers etc have ‘Forex Trader’ in their bios?
Forex trading seems to have been heavily promoted on the interwebs in recent years. Various chancers sell 'systems' and software and have youtube channels offering tips etc.
It appears to be sold as a bit more accessible than day trading for example, but both offer the opportunity to 'get rich quick' unlike the more careful strategies associated with share dealing.
Bottom line is that there is absolutely no bar to get over to call oneself a 'forex trader' in the internet age, but it could lend one the appearance of being 'smart'.
It’s imortant because if we rely on antibody test results to work out what proportion of the population has already been exposed to the virus we’ll underestimate.
What really matters is who can catch and carry the virus. Until we have evidence to the contrary... no antibodies found means you are still able to be a carrier in the ongoing epidemic.
no antibodies found means you are still able to be a carrier in the ongoing epidemic.
Really? I think you need a qualifier such as "may", "probably" or "not beyond the realms of possibility" in there.
Please do some research on the reliabilty of antibody testing, Kelvin. No antibodies found means exactly that, no antibodies found and no more. And what it means should be equally as limited.
People my have antibodies below the detection limits - even the blurb by the test makers I was shown by my local pharmacist shouws an antibody curve after infection with the detection limit shown only to detect the peak of the curve.
And some people seem resistant for one reason or another. They have similar cold virus antibodies that protect them (especially children who get 5-6 colds a years with a good chance of a corona cold in the mix) has been speculated in the press here, or some other natural imunity/protection - they're working on it.
Really? I think you need a qualifier such as “may”, “probably” or “not beyond the realms of possibility” in there.
You mean, such as...
Until we have evidence to the contrary…
For public health planning purposes... someone with an absence of antibodies needs to be treated as a possible future carrier, not a barrier. We will hopefully know more about reinfection longer term, but that'll take time. Best case scenario is that everyone who's carried the virus once can't do so again (unlikely, but it would be great, wouldn't it). Worst case scenario is that even the presence of antibodies doesn't provide long term prevention of infection... let's hope that we find out otherwise.
If I had to bet on an outcome, I would think that going into Winter 21/22 we’ll be vaccinating for Covid in the same way we vaccinate for Flu at the moment, perhaps with a greater onus and it will be a bit more ‘normal / real world’ than it is now.
This is the same view I have.
I’ve taking from that if we vaccinate everyone over 50 (who wants it) and everyone with a known underlying health issue we will avoid the majority of deaths. Obviously ‘Long Covid’ sounds shit, but it’s the lessor issue at the moment.
Based on this, I be offering all those people who are in those groups support/shielding, but letting everyone else to get on with things and treat it in the same was a flu, influenza, etc..
Wait until Furlough ends at the end of this month, and unemployment shoots up.
If we're not careful the effects of increased poverty, delayed healthcare is going to cause more deaths than the disease itself.
I wonder why PHE were even using excel and not a proper database?
I suppose we should be grateful they aren't sending handwritten tallies using carrier pigeons. Windows Vista was a big leap forward for the NHS.
It really fills you with confidence, doesn't it?
Vaccine development and testing is continuing; optimistic noises and all that but...
If I had to bet on an outcome, I would think that going into Winter 21/22 we’ll be vaccinating for Covid in the same way we vaccinate for Flu at the moment, perhaps with a greater onus and it will be a bit more ‘normal / real world’ than it is now.
If I had to bet it would be that we will not have a proven vaccine in the next two years; hope I'm wrong but just because the investment into vaccine development is massive doesn't mean it will be successful.
2/ no longer have high enough levels of antibodies to detect with the Roche test?
This. Antibodies to cornoaviruses seem to wane rather rapidly, sadly. If you failed to make a high titer - or strongly binding antibodies (there is a massive range of potencies in human data) then seronegativity may result - The Roche assay is an automated elisa capture, so weakly binding antibodies won't be detected (they may be pretty useless for anything else too).
I've not seen any evidence that PCR positive patients do not seroconvert. I leave others to speculate. But one has to focus on the knowns: PCR +ve infected patients, with or without symptoms, seroconvert. The reverse may not be true, cross reactivity is not immunity, and I see no reason to reject the null hypothesis (we are not immune). The epidemiological data seems to bear that out based on relaxation of lockdown. If the waning epidemic was immunity-driven, then we either have little lasting immunity (if many had been infected) or there is no immunity.
If I was prioritizing NHSTT, it would have to be testing for those most likely to spread, vaccines to protect those most at risk from infection. That means repeated testing for healthcare workers, teachers, transport workers, general high contact positions. Not as a means for the general public to function as normal (testing will not achieve that). Vaccines for healthcare workers, the elderly (if efficacious in this population), and again, those who may spread most.
You need to focus on the 1/5 of the population that contribute 4/5 of the spread. Adam Kurcharski at LSHTM has spoken of this many times (K not R). It's the first rule in the public health of sexually transmitted diseases. This is a much less extreme example.
If I had to bet it would be that we will not have a proven vaccine in the next two years
I will bet that we will have protective passive vaccination by antibodies within that time. The Regeneron data looks impressive in mild patients. Everyone is looking at prophylaxis. The challenge will be making enough (humans are pretty efficient bioreactors when given a vaccine).
Excel has a row limit of 1,048,576 per sheet. That’s one unwieldy spreadsheet! I wonder why PHE were even using excel and not a proper database?
Or just put a check to use another sheet/file when full? (putting aside the questionable choice of using excel)
For public health planning purposes… someone with an absence of antibodies needs to be treated as a possible future carrier, not a barrier.
My view is that you plan for what you observe and not worst case. And your case is worse than even observed worst case.
I've just walked past the primary, junior and secondary schools. There are hudreds of kids playing in the first two with no masks and no social distancing, in fact several games seemed to be maximum contact. In the secondary school they're masked inside and out but once 50m away from school the masks come off. How many of those have measuarble antibodies? **** all. How many are transmitting when there's a case? Same answer.
Go up an age group and junior is in the thick of it, he's studying in Paris, DJ at raves and socialising along with his generation. Large numbers of them are getting it along with Lycée students but when they go in and do retrospective antibody testing you aren't seeing the infection rates you'd expect. For one lycée it was about 40% of those tested as contacts, why only 40%?
On a totally different tack, a positive antibody test is claimed to be 98% accurate even though a negative result suffers lower accuracy. However depending on the test even a 98% accurate positive result only indicates 74% or 86% presence of protection. It needs the results from both tests to be sure of protection at 96.5%.
https://www.santelog.com/actualites/covid-19-les-performances-des-tests-serologiques-en-question.
Going back a few pages in discussion about how long the virus would last; at even March rates of infection the time periods looked/look bad, as in decades rather than years. I'm beginning to doubt that because in some environments that Covid has run rampant through it isn't taking off again. I'm keeping an eye on Science Po Paris which has just reopened having shut for two weeks with 40 confirmed cases mid September. Are there enough students that haven't had it and don't have an immunity either from antibodies or just because they're immune for it to take off again? They sure aren't going to stop partying so we'll see.
Whilst I don't share the extreme optimism of the Oxford team who were claming herd immunity months back I don't think we're as far off as antibody test results would indicate. Especially in the populations that typically do lots of spreading of anything from chlamydia to the flu - students!
That’s one unwieldy spreadsheet! I wonder why PHE were even using excel and not a proper database?
Eight months ago the test didn't exist, let alone the infrastructure. I think you can guess why they ran with excel out of Colindale when the capacity was 20,000 per day and containment was the plan.
Especially in the populations that typically do lots of spreading of anything from chlamydia to the flu – students!
I'm not sure which school Madame is teaching in, but I'll accept the first. Primary schools are not however, to my knowledge, big spreaders of the second (I hope!) 😉
Influenza hospital admission rates for young children exceed the elderly. Mortality is basically nil, however.
How many are transmitting when there’s a case?
That wasn't my point. It was that people who have "had symptoms" but tested negative for antibodies should be considered to still be part of the pool of potential future carriers. We can't assume that people who've had symptoms, but in whom antibodies have not been found, are a barrier to future transmission, when planning how to handle the epidemic. This may change if we find that a significant number of people who test negative for anti-bodies are still immune to the virus (carrying and transmitting it, not just resistant to falling ill)... and let's hope that we do.
I don’t think we’re as far off as antibody test results would indicate.
Let's hope you are right. Not something I'd bet lives on yet.
