COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interview with tony Blair this morning on bbc. He was pretty balanced in his assessment /critical of the govt so far to be fair.

however he was giving his opinion and advice on how we get out of lockdown as he was saying it was important the economy has the best chance of recovery to pay this bill.

he said the key to this was antibody testing so that we can work out who has had the disease and therefore immunity. I know there are debates about whether this is true and can it be caught twice. However he was saying this with such authority it seemed that there was a reliable antibody test? Obviously those who have immunity should be back to work, which seems an obvious point but I had understood that there isn’t a reliable antibody test?

isn’t that the whole problem???
 
i8rags said:
Advice please.
I know the rules say not, but I want to gauge opinion.
My daughter is a nurse, works really hard and risk is high to her, she currently is very upset that she can’t meet up with her boyfriend even for a walk round a park. She feels that the rules are particularly unfair to her, she drives to work, does 12 hour shifts and comes home stressed. All she wants is a bit of down time to meet her fella on our local park and at least clap eyes on him.
I’m saying no, but feel it’s not the correct decision.
Thoughts
Click to expand...

She’s already meeting him I reckon. Just make sure they use protection.
 
That UAE testing station is impressive in its speed of construction. It seems like it would need a fair amount of machinery to operate, and I don't know how they've managed that!

75k tests a day, taking a day each is workable in a population like theirs.
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
Interview with tony Blair this morning on bbc. He was pretty balanced in his assessment /critical of the govt so far to be fair.

however he was giving his opinion and advice on how we get out of lockdown as he was saying it was important the economy has the best chance of recovery to pay this bill.

he said the key to this was antibody testing so that we can work out who has had the disease and therefore immunity. I know there are debates about whether this is true and can it be caught twice. However he was saying this with such authority it seemed that there was a reliable antibody test? Obviously those who have immunity should be back to work, which seems an obvious point but I had understood that there isn’t a reliable antibody test?

isn’t that the whole problem???
Click to expand...
There is a reliable antibody test. It just that the machine costs a fortune and is limited as to the number of tests it can perform.
The issue is accurate testing cheaply at scale.
The finger prick test that the UK tested a week and a half ago is accurate (no false -ves) but not particularly specific (it needs a high number of antibodies to deliver a +ve result). Only people who have been ill test +ve. Those asymptomatic and those slightly ill, especially most under 40 don't have enough antibodies to test +ve.
 
Last edited:
Cheers, for the reply’s, much appreciated. Gonna stick with the no.
Least they’ll do is hug and kiss, too risky.
Thanks though.
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
Interview with tony Blair this morning on bbc. He was pretty balanced in his assessment /critical of the govt so far to be fair.

however he was giving his opinion and advice on how we get out of lockdown as he was saying it was important the economy has the best chance of recovery to pay this bill.

he said the key to this was antibody testing so that we can work out who has had the disease and therefore immunity. I know there are debates about whether this is true and can it be caught twice. However he was saying this with such authority it seemed that there was a reliable antibody test? Obviously those who have immunity should be back to work, which seems an obvious point but I had understood that there isn’t a reliable antibody test?

isn’t that the whole problem???
Click to expand...
the WHO say nobody has a reliable antibody test yet,immunity also seems up in the air they say
 
BlueAnorak said:
Most of those admitted to hospital with COVID-19 have low Vit D levels and most have low Pottasium levels. Neither helps the body fight off infections.
Normal Vit D levels promote a healthy immune system, so low Vit D levels will degrade it to some degree. Taking a Vit D supplement wont harm you and may help you should you be unlucky to catch COVID-19.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/vitamin-d-coronavirus
Low Potassium levels are linked to diabetes and high blood pressure and the ACE2 / COVID-19 protein party lowers it still further. So unless you have a disease that requires a low potassium diet (e.g Kidney disease) having a high potassium diet (potatoes, squashes etc) may help you fight off COVID-19. Talk to your doctor if your worried about this.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...tients_with_Coronavirus_Disease_2019_COVID-19
Click to expand...
I suppose making sure vitd is in normal range say 30 - 60 then it will help immune system to fight off any CV attack but should it develop to needing ventilator treatment then your point about the possibility drugs that attenuate the immune system are probably useful.
Personally my body simply does not make vitd via even the Spanish sun so I need to take around 2k Units daily to get to the 30 minimum we all require in our blood.
Hopefully this helps to fend off any attack, it certainly cannot do any harm. At my age I refuse to take any chances.
 
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public

Have I got this right? One in eight of those who've tested positive have died?

Obviously the more that testing is limited to those serious enough to be hospitalised the higher that figure but it still seems shockingly high.

Even if unreliable, some random testing would surely give some idea of how prevalent it is in the community and that must be a prerequisite for any relaxation of restrictions (and even with uncertainty over immunity).
 
Vic said:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public

Have I got this right? One in eight of those who've tested positive have died?

Obviously the more that testing is limited to those serious enough to be hospitalised the higher that figure but it still seems shockingly high.

Even if unreliable, some random testing would surely give some idea of how prevalent it is in the community and that must be a prerequisite for any relaxation of restrictions (and even with uncertainty over immunity).
Click to expand...
One in 10 people in England who are confirmed to have contracted coronavirus are dying, according to Public Health England

Only those who have been tested are counted. The true number of cases is unknown so the actual death rate is expected to be much lower

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...ea-covid-19-deaths-in-england-mapped-11969852
 
Vic said:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public

Have I got this right? One in eight of those who've tested positive have died?

Obviously the more that testing is limited to those serious enough to be hospitalised the higher that figure but it still seems shockingly high.

Even if unreliable, some random testing would surely give some idea of how prevalent it is in the community and that must be a prerequisite for any relaxation of restrictions (and even with uncertainty over immunity).
Click to expand...

They were only really testing severe cases that required hospital admissions so it will look that way. You had to basically require immediate emergency attention to get a test.
 
Marvin said:
Infrastructure is key but it stems from political will. I don't have a clue as to what it takes to construct a lab. but I see the UAE built a lab in 14 days that conducts tens of thousands of reverse transcription-polymerase reaction (RT-PCR) tests per day. They've tested 800k people so far. That's getting on for 10% of their population. I wouldn't be surprised if China or South Korea built the lab for them but the UK are world experts at this stuff. We could do the same if we wanted because we used to have a whole host of public health labs and the UK has a lot of expertise in biotechnology.

We've known what was coming since January. It's not dithering. The main man said he didn't want to suppress the virus so there you go, we're not. Well we are but as you say just to suppress the peak. Going beyond that halts acquisition of immunity..

I subscribe to the idea that immunity comes through a needle but I am wobbling a little. If the study in New York though finds that 30% plus have antibodies then I might change my mind. It will illustrate whether herd immunity is realistically attainable. In 1918 it would have been all we had.
Click to expand...
Good post Marvin.
Re your last para, 2 things spring to mind, firstly is any single pronged attack on the virus justified in the absence of a vaccine?. Secondly, we all want all the measures that may work to work and to my mind deliberately allowing time to develop a herd immunity is equivalent to sacrificing those who could have been saved by a more urgent approach.
 
twosips said:
They were only really testing severe cases that required hospital admissions so it will look that way. You had to basically require immediate emergency attention to get a test.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily I recently developed symptoms (yesterday) and have been advised by 111 to self isolate , due to me being a key worker in the NHS my trust have are organising a test for me , not sure how it works but they have said to expect an email soon advising me how I get tested
 
Blueknows said:
Not necessarily I recently developed symptoms (yesterday) and have been advised by 111 to self isolate , due to me being a key worker in the NHS my trust have are organising a test for me , not sure how it works but they have said to expect an email soon advising me how I get tested
Click to expand...

That's a very recent change though due to increased testing capacity. Before that people were being told to stay at home and only if they were struggling to breathe should they ring an ambulance and then they were being tested.
 
Vic said:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public

Have I got this right? One in eight of those who've tested positive have died?

Obviously the more that testing is limited to those serious enough to be hospitalised the higher that figure but it still seems shockingly high.

Even if unreliable, some random testing would surely give some idea of how prevalent it is in the community and that must be a prerequisite for any relaxation of restrictions (and even with uncertainty over immunity).
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what the stats say. 120,067 positive tests and 16,060 deaths. Agreed it's shockingly high.
 
Easing the coronavirus lockdown too quickly could lead to a second peak in the outbreak, Downing Street has said.

Asked about reports that Prime Minister Boris Johnson favours a cautious approach to lifting restrictions, his spokesman said: "The big concern is a second peak."that is what ultimately will do the most damage to health and the most damage to the economy.
"If you move too quickly then the virus could begin to spread exponentially again.
"The public will expect us to do everything we can to stop the spread of the virus and protect lives.

BBC news
 
twosips said:
That's a very recent change though due to increased testing capacity. Before that people were being told to stay at home and only if they were struggling to breathe should they ring an ambulance and then they were being tested.
Click to expand...
That's why Im confused , now I don't know if its just the NHS making sure Im not just blagging a week off but Im feeling awful and the last thing I feel like doing is driving across the other side of Manchester to get tested , if I have to do then fine but a week in isolation is surely better for me
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top