Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

Coronavirus - Part Two.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, catmiss said:

I watched a tv item today with scientist contributors from both camps, both from British universities, and both with persuasive arguments so I am a fence sitter. I’m also one of the ‘vulnerable’ who, after a brief sojourn into the new normal, has returned to self isolating with rates rising,  a situation which neither solution will solve

I find this worrying from the BBC article posted by apelike, given the numerous **** ups on testing in this country - and as I said earlier - we don't know if someone who has had corvid is immune and for how long

 

"The declaration recommends a number of measures to protect the vulnerable, including regular testing of care-home workers, with a move as far as possible towards using staff who have acquired immunity."

 

And it's not as if care home residents are the only vulnerable group.

 

Edited by Longcol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Longcol said:

I find this worrying from the BBC article posted by apelike, given the numerous **** ups on testing in this country - and as I said earlier - we don't know if someone who has had corvid is immune and for how long

 

"The declaration recommends a number of measures to protect the vulnerable, including regular testing of care-home workers, with a move as far as possible towards using staff who have acquired immunity."

 

 

You’ve hit the nail on the head, without a sufficient and efficient test, track and trace system supported by top notch IT systems and data analysis no measures will be fully effective. Not helped by factory new robotics causing , amongst other diagnostics, shortage of Covid testing swabs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 There is little about the Great Barrington Declaration that feels convincingly scientific.

The GBD website, boasts that the statement has been signed by 2,780(how true is that ?) “Medical and Public Health Scientists” .  The brief declaration itself, offers little in the way of scientific evidence or even substantially new policy suggestions. 

 Almost every single major medical body is on the “side” of not allowing Covid-19 to run rampant  through young people.

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/great-barrington-declaration-is-not-scientific-or-accurate-says-prof-devi-sridhar

(My apologise for the size of the font. My glasses are to blame).

Prof .Livermore knocks the idea of a "Perfect Vaccine" and then grasps  herd immunity as a way out. At this point ,medical science doesn't know for sure whether or not lasting immunity can be acquired to Cov-19.

Edited by nikki-red

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Longcol said:

I find this worrying from the BBC article posted by apelike, given the numerous **** ups on testing in this country - and as I said earlier - we don't know if someone who has had corvid is immune and for how long

 

"The declaration recommends a number of measures to protect the vulnerable, including regular testing of care-home workers, with a move as far as possible towards using staff who have acquired immunity."

 

And it's not as if care home residents are the only vulnerable group.

 

Wait a minute, that last time I looked, getting covid gave you immunity for about 3 months. What's changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tinfoilhat said:

Wait a minute, that last time I looked, getting covid gave you immunity for about 3 months. What's changed?

Media reporting with its unqualified writers such as Matt Reynolds in Wired as they love a good scare story to boost their ratings.

 

But... this seems to sum it up so far, and yes it does indicate around 3 months maybe longer.

 

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-long-does-immunity-last-after-covid-19-what-we-know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the long run, what is needed is in depth repeatable science into

lasting immunity to Cov 19 -not preprints.

The upshot of not being able to achieve lasting immunity will be to push the vulnerable onto prophylactic drugs for life.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, apelike said:

Media reporting with its unqualified writers such as Matt Reynolds in Wired as they love a good scare story to boost their ratings.

 

But... this seems to sum it up so far, and yes it does indicate around 3 months maybe longer.

 

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-long-does-immunity-last-after-covid-19-what-we-know

It was the WHO actually. But if I had it in March am I immune or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

It was the WHO actually. But if I had it in March am I immune or not?

I would forget about being imune or not and just keep to all the guidelines in place,  keeping your self and the more vunerable safe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, petemcewan said:

In the long run, what is needed is in depth repeatable science into

lasting immunity to Cov 19 -not preprints.

The upshot of not being able to achieve lasting immunity will be to push the vulnerable onto prophylactic drugs for life.

 

The problem though is that the science is lacking simply because not enough data is available and one reason for that may actually be down to the fact that we are also trying to control and limit its spread. I said a while ago that it needs to spread quicker as just slowing it down only does what your last sentence alludes too although I'm not sure what prophylactic drugs you mean. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

It was the WHO actually. But if I had it in March am I immune or not?

From all that I have seen I don’t think that anyone can give you a definitive answer.

The science seems to state that if it gives you any immunity it may only be for a matter of months.

Just like the common cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RJRB said:

From all that I have seen I don’t think that anyone can give you a definitive answer.

The science seems to state that if it gives you any immunity it may only be for a matter of months.

Just like the common cold.

One of the problems with the virus is that it is novel and humans haven’t been exposed to it before. That becomes less so, as the pandemic develops. A second, or third infection is likely to be much less dangerous than a first one, if indeed, you can get it more than once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reported "2nd infections" that I have read about, have been identified through testing, not through symptoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.