Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Coronavirus: The Thread

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Coronavirus: The Thread

Old 29th Aug 2020, 13:14
  #9341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sabotage Central Office
Posts: 0
VP the piece said the risks from contracting Covid 19, not the risk of contracting it
Slaine is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2020, 14:29
  #9342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 82
Posts: 50
Jings, I never imagined that being over 80 would be a CONDITION!
DType is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2020, 15:30
  #9343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 1,280
Originally Posted by Peter H View Post
My local pharmacy (LLoyds) is taking bookings for free flu shots from 14th Sept (if over 65, pregnant, or with some other conditions). I assume many pharmacies will be doing the same, and it may be more convenient for some than a visit to the doctors surgery.
Boots has been taking bookings for a couple of weeks.
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2020, 16:10
  #9344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 412
I rather think the much expanded flu vaccination programme may be a stretch on resources. I gather that this year they are extending it to everyone that wants it, rather than just the oldies and those with an underlying health condition. We usually have a vaccination session in the village hall each year, that copes with maybe 50 to 100 people, but with the need for distancing, etc, plus the increased number of people who probably want vaccinating, the logistics might get a bit challenging this year.

As the vaccine only has a limited period of effectiveness (~6 months), and takes 10 days or so to become effective after vaccination, it's best to try and get it done a bit later in the year, I think, to be sure that it's still effective during the February/March flu infection peak. Looking at the data for previous years, the infection rate for flu seems to start increasing around the end of November, beginning of December, each year. That suggests that getting vaccinated in late October might be about right, as the vaccine should still be effective until about April next year.
VP959 is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2020, 17:11
  #9345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by DType View Post
Jings, I never imagined that being over 80 would be a CONDITION!
Well considering it is significantly beyond the average life expectancy I would say it is a “condition”. Surely once you reach that age you are expecting your number to be punched any day, which it will be?

The thing nobody talks about is the number of people of all ages that get it and obviously don’t die but have life changing side effects. That is a lot more affected than those that die from this.
highflyer40 is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2020, 17:21
  #9346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 1,280
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
I rather think the much expanded flu vaccination programme may be a stretch on resources. I gather that this year they are extending it to everyone that wants it, rather than just the oldies and those with an underlying health condition. We usually have a vaccination session in the village hall each year, that copes with maybe 50 to 100 people, but with the need for distancing, etc, plus the increased number of people who probably want vaccinating, the logistics might get a bit challenging this year.

As the vaccine only has a limited period of effectiveness (~6 months), and takes 10 days or so to become effective after vaccination, it's best to try and get it done a bit later in the year, I think, to be sure that it's still effective during the February/March flu infection peak. Looking at the data for previous years, the infection rate for flu seems to start increasing around the end of November, beginning of December, each year. That suggests that getting vaccinated in late October might be about right, as the vaccine should still be effective until about April next year.
Yeah. A Spanish research paper reckoned the flu vaccine effective period was about 100 days after which it tailed off. I also used to try and get the vaccine as late as possible however this year I thought to just make sure I got it as there were supply difficulties last year as I recall. Also, the last few years seem to have the peak of flu activity around Christmas and New Year.
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2020, 17:59
  #9347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 412
I posted the flu data for the past couple of years a while ago, but this is from the PHE report:


VP959 is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 06:11
  #9348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 464
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/h...s-testing.html

This is interesting.

The PCR tests can be extremely sensitive at detecting COVID virus. So sensitive they can test sewage to see if there are infected people in a city.

The PCR amplifies the viral RNA with each cycle. You can run as many cycles as you want in order to crank up the sensitivity. The fewer cycles required to turn positive, the more virus on the swab. The more cycles required to turn positive, the less virus on the swab.

Looks like no one in USA has agreed how many cycles constituted a real positive (who may get sick and may infect others) from someone with minuscule traces of virus that pose zero risk.

Most experts suggest the test should be limited to 30 cycles.

But most tests do 40 cycles.

If you stopped after 30 cycles and called the test negative, 90 % of current positive results would be negative. So USA would have 4000 meaningful infections each day rather than 45,000 cases.

This helps explain all the asymptomatic cases - the test is repeated until it turns positive, even though most of these positives won’t get sick.

It also means we have been quarantining and isolating many people who are not going to get sick and who won’t infect others.

If China are still
testing, maybe they have set a much lower cycle threshold. And thats why numbers are way down there.
slats11 is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 06:44
  #9349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: There and here
Posts: 2,254
I'd imagine that there will be a large uptake of free flu shots this winter in the UK. The worried well will not want to miss out on the chance to cover themselves for all eventualities. Hopefully those that need it (as in those who have to have it every year) won't miss out.

Has anyone else noticed that since the approximate start of the pandemic there has been a dearth of people with colds and sniffles, hayfever, or influenza ? It's almost as if we're scared to get ill and show symptoms!
SpringHeeledJack is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 07:06
  #9350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,912
Originally Posted by SpringHeeledJack View Post
I'd imagine that there will be a large uptake of free flu shots this winter in the UK. The worried well will not want to miss out on the chance to cover themselves for all eventualities. Hopefully those that need it (as in those who have to have it every year) won't miss out.!
"Worried well" and "vulnerable" are not mutually exclusive, as many households (including mine) will attest.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 07:43
  #9351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 412
The very high sensitivity of RT-PCR has been mentioned here before as a reason for being able to detect apparent evidence of the virus that may well not be viable, i.e. able to infect people. As yet, we don't really have an easy and quick test to see whether a sample contains viable virus, other than to culture samples to find out. That's a fairly slow and costly method, so not well suited to a screening test.

The problem is we can't really set a limit on multiplication cycles during PCR, as we have no easy way to know whether a sample just contains RNA remnants from the virus, or viable virus. As I've posted here a couple of times now, RT-PCR is a double edged sword, in that its high sensitivity is both very useful at detecting what may be virus, but probably misleading in that not all positive samples will be viable, some are most probably just RNA remnants from broken down viral particles.
VP959 is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 07:53
  #9352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,186
Students

At last the media has worken up to this potential disaster waiting to happen:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-53947488

The issue is being driven by university lecturer's groups, but the reality is that herds of 18 - 22 year olds living on campus in halls of residence is one thing, the real issue is those who live in the community, and flock out in the evenings into bars in the locality, where they won't social distance, and won't wear masks, and very probably won't give their contact details that are the issue.

Taking Nottingham as an example (it's where I live and has two very large universities) the full time population in postcode areas such as NG1, NG2, NG7 and NG9 will likely be suffering local lockdowns as a result of careless behaviour from this group of people whom we already know aren't that interested in capping the virus' spread, since "they're alright Jack" and won't get it seriously - in all probability. That affects the local economies in all kinds of ways, at a time when the economy is going to be hit really hard anyway, as the furlough scheme tapers off.

It's important not to tar all students with the same brush but I'm afraid that because of the behaviour of students I avoid the city centre in the evenings, any evening, especially at the start and end of the academic year. It's just not a nice place to be, which is a shame, not because it's dangerous, but because it's just plain rowdy and covid isn't going to change that kind of behaviour.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 09:07
  #9353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sabotage Central Office
Posts: 0
AT, I fear the spread to become endemic amongst teenagers and 20-30 yr olds is inevitable, they simply don't care if they catch it.
Stopping Universities opening would delay it but I'm not at all sure that delay would be beneficial in the long run.
Slaine is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 11:00
  #9354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 412
Just happened to be reading a couple of stories and it seemed to me that there was a perfect opportunity to solve both issues being raised. On the one hand there is an ethical debate about "live testing", i.e. deliberately exposing healthy people to Covid-19, as a part of research into vaccines and acquired immunity. On the other hand we have thousands of people protesting in Europe because they believe that the virus is a hoax.

Seems simple, just use all those who think the virus is a hoax in live testing. They can't really object, as they don't believe the virus exists anyway. Be interesting to see how the control group (i.e. those that have not been given the real vaccine) might respond when some of them get ill with Covid-19. . .
VP959 is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 11:08
  #9355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
VP959, I like that idea a lot.

Concurrent activity, win win results, hard to see a downside...
currawong is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 12:14
  #9356 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 57
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by currawong View Post
VP959, I like that idea a lot.

Concurrent activity, win win results, hard to see a downside...
Gets my vote!
treadigraph is online now  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 18:33
  #9357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 60
Posts: 869
VP959
Well I can see you are a science based, rather than legally trained. I agree with you in principle, but would suggest my learned friends may have some issues with this approach.
Time for Dinner
Kind regards
Mr Mac
Mr Mac is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2020, 19:29
  #9358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 179
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
...
Seems simple, just use all those who think the virus is a hoax in live testing. They can't really object, as they don't believe the virus exists anyway. Be interesting to see how the control group (i.e. those that have not been given the real vaccine) might respond when some of them get ill with Covid-19. . .
Which raises a question that's been interesting me recently, would it work?

Well how hard can it be to infect somebody with the pathogen from a major pandemic? It may be harder than you would think, they tried and failed for the 1918 epidemic.

From On The Epidemiology of Influenza https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/...1743-422X-5-29 p5
In 2003, Bridges et al reviewed influenza transmission andf ound "no human experimental studies published in the English-language literature delineating person-to-person transmission of influenza. This stands in contrast to several elegant human studies of rhinovirus and RSV transmission ..." [50]. (p. 1097)

However, according to Jordan's frightening monograph on the 1918 pandemic, there were five attempts to demonstrate sick-to-well influenza transmission in the desperate days following the pandemic and all were "singularly fruitless" [19]. (p. 441) Jordan reports that all five studies failed to support sick-to-well transmission, in spite of having numerous acutely ill influenza patients, in various
stages of their illness, carefully cough, spit, and breathe on a combined total of >150 well patients [51-55].

The description the methods of collecting and inoculating infectious material reveals that they were far more invasive than simply "cough, spit, and breathe on". But they still failed to infect anyone.

It's pretty obvious that covid spreads [mainly?] by aerosols. However, with the 1918 experience in mind, does this need confirming by experiment?



Peter H is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2020, 01:19
  #9359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 800
Pax vs Airline
Someone telling porkies?
Different truths?
Different versions of events?
Different perceptions of reality?
When opposing exaggerations overlap, what lies in between?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-53966897

I'd say a follow-up on this event might be illuminating, one way or the other.

Quote: Stephanie Whitfield, from Cardiff, who was on the flight with her partner, told the BBC she was not surprised.

She said she and her husband "decided to isolate for two weeks on the flight", before they even learnt about the positive cases.

"This flight was a debacle. The chap next to me had his mask around his neck. Not only did the airline not pull him up on it, they gave him a free drink when he said he knew a member of the crew.

"Loads of people were taking their masks off and wandering up and down the aisles to talk to others.

"As soon as the flight landed, a load of people took their masks off immediately. The flight was full of selfish 'covidiots' and an inept crew who couldn't care less."

Stephanie said she and her husband had both had sent off for a test and would return it as soon as possible.

"We've got a few symptoms, but we hope it's a cold. We've had a bit of a cough, a sore throat, a headache.

"I'm angry more than anything."

jolihokistix is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2020, 06:14
  #9360 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 11,528

ORAC is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.