Covid-19 Discussion

[grober]

Cool moist environment with active manual workers.
Dry filtered environment with people fairly passive.
So one does not relate to the other.

Didn't say they did relate but both high risk in different ways.

I think the situation so far is that for all the number of people packed on planes in the early part of the year the transmission onboard desn't seem to have been significant.

Evidence? -my inference is derived from parallel situations previously deemed high risk on the ground. If you just think of an aeroplane as a restaurant /pub with no exits or social distancing in the sky

The problem with air travel has been that it moves people with the infection to other places - which is what spreads the disease geographically

Agreed

 

[markjay]

...what you are seeing in Leicester (and soon many other cities throughout the UK) is young people testing positive for Coronavirus due to more testing and social interaction. More cases is a natural consequence of more testing and social mingling post lockdown by younger healthy people who do not have a significant problem with Coronavirus, do not have serious health complications and they do not die.

The young and healthy have no risk of serious illness

You seem to accept that there's an increase of Coronavirus infections in Leicester, but (a) you conclude that it's mostly young people - what is this assumption based on? And (b) you say that young people are at low risk of developing symptoms, but this is not addressing the issue of the young passing it on to people in other age groups.

 

[st13phil]

Cool moist environment with active manual workers.

Other relevant factors appear to include:

• Lots of fluids spraying about (from wash-down)
• Noisy environment promotes shouting in close proximity to communicate (increase in aerosol transmission - cf ban on singing at wedding services)
• Lots of migrant workers working in close proximity and living in multiple-occupancy accommodation (certainly the case with one of the outbreaks in Germany)

 

[grober]

Coronavirus: Anglesey local lockdown 'possibility' for Llangefni factory outbreak

But Public Health Wales says there is no evidence of "widespread community transmission".

www.bbc.co.uk

US coronavirus hotspots linked to meat processing plants

Analysis shows meat factories a key source of virus transmission as workers and unions urge health and safety overhaul

www.theguardian.com

 

[markjay]

Other relevant factors appear to include:

• Lots of fluids spraying about (from wash-down)
• Noisy environment promotes shouting in close proximity to communicate (increase in aerosol transmission - cf ban on singing at wedding services)
• Lots of migrant workers working in close proximity and living in multiple-occupancy accommodation (certainly the case with one of the outbreaks in Germany)

As time goes by, we gain better understanding of how the virus is transmitted, how the disease develops, how to prevent it and how to best treat it.

Which is precisely why delaying the infections as much as possible is a good idea, and hence the measures taken in March by the government.

Herd immunity is the ultimate solution, obviously, but the slower we get there, the better. Trying to get there too quickly might prove costly.

 

[ChipChop]

You seem to accept that there's an increase of Coronavirus infections in Leicester, but (a) you conclude that it's mostly young people - what is this assumption based on? And (b) you say that young people are at low risk of developing symptoms, but this is not addressing the issue of the young passing it on to people in other age groups.

The media have reported over 600 positive test results. What they have not reported is 600+ hospitalisations or god forbid deaths.

This means the infected are not in an at risk group. The media also reported the school cases and the logic that the young do not really bother to social distance, which while anecdotal is generally true.

As infected numbers grow quickly but hospitalisations and deaths remain low that indicates that herd immunity is building. While this happens the at risk should still exercise caution but it will with time allow the immunity levels to reach the 50% - 60% needed for herd immunity.

 

[Swotty]

The media have reported over 600 positive test results. What they have not reported is 600+ hospitalisations or god forbid deaths.

This means the infected are not in an at risk group. The media also reported the school cases and the logic that the young do not really bother to social distance, which while anecdotal is generally true.

As infected numbers grow quickly but hospitalisations and deaths remain low that indicates that herd immunity is building. While this happens the at risk should still exercise caution but it will with time allow the immunity levels to reach the 50% - 60% needed for herd immunity.

Trump proved right yet again - the number of reported infections rises with the number of people tested - but not everyone is actually ill or ill enough for hospital, so the aim is to prevent or restrict transference.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Trump proved right yet again

ACE!

 

[artyman]

Crowded housing is cited as one cause, and today the Government announces that 3 million Hong Kong residents can come to the UK, where are they going to live, we are desperately short of housing at the moment, let alone to what jobs with so many now losing theirs. The Uk is a small island we just don't have the space or resources for a population increase. Is it me or has the world gone totally mad.

 

[markjay]

Unlikely that all 3 million will actually come over here though.....?

 

[ChipChop]

In this article the BBC confirm the new cases in Leicester are young and middle aged people.

They also confirm that there has been a growth in testing in Leicester and hospital admissions are not rising at a worrying level.

They fail to make the link that this is herd immunity developing in the community.

Coronavirus: 'No obvious source' of Leicester Covid-19 outbreak

The report said the increase in reported cases could be down to "growth in availability of testing".

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Petrol Pete]

ChipChop, are you implying that the BBC is unable to join the dot's unless they themselves draw the dot's ?

Wash your mouth out with soap young man . Fairtrade/Vegan/ethical soap only, natch.

 

[ChipChop]

ChipChop, are you implying that the BBC is unable to join the dot's unless they themselves draw the dot's ?

Wash your mouth out with soap young man . Fairtrade/Vegan/ethical soap only, natch.

First real positive in this whole sorry saga for the last 100+ days and they choose to not make the public aware.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

First real positive in this whole sorry saga for the last 100+ days and they choose to not make the public aware.

If you have such little respect for the BBC why do you read their output and repost it here?

It's illogical.

 

[grober]

Herd immunity and COVID-19: What you need to know

Get the facts about coronavirus and herd immunity.

www.mayoclinic.org

QUOTE:-


Herd immunity can also be reached when a sufficient number of people in the population have recovered from a disease and have developed antibodies against future infection.
However, there are some major problems with relying on community infection to create herd immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. First, it isn't yet clear if infection with the COVID-19 virus makes a person immune to future infection.
Research suggests that after infection with some coronaviruses, reinfection with the same virus — though usually mild and only happening in a fraction of people — is possible after a period of months or years. Further research is needed to determine the protective effect of antibodies to the virus in those who have been infected.
Even if infection with the COVID-19 virus creates long-lasting immunity, a large number of people would have to become infected to reach the herd immunity threshold. Experts estimate that in the U.S., 70% of the population — more than 200 million people — would have to recover from COVID-19 to halt the epidemic. If many people become sick with COVID-19 at once, the health care system could quickly become overwhelmed. This amount of infection could also lead to serious complications and millions of deaths, especially among older people and those who have chronic conditions.

In other words relying on natural infection rather than vaccination for developing herd immunity is a much higher risk strategy for the old, chronic sick and health care professionals.

 

[markjay]

Herd immunity and COVID-19: What you need to know

Get the facts about coronavirus and herd immunity.

www.mayoclinic.org

QUOTE:-


Herd immunity can also be reached when a sufficient number of people in the population have recovered from a disease and have developed antibodies against future infection.
However, there are some major problems with relying on community infection to create herd immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. First, it isn't yet clear if infection with the COVID-19 virus makes a person immune to future infection.
Research suggests that after infection with some coronaviruses, reinfection with the same virus — though usually mild and only happening in a fraction of people — is possible after a period of months or years. Further research is needed to determine the protective effect of antibodies to the virus in those who have been infected.
Even if infection with the COVID-19 virus creates long-lasting immunity, a large number of people would have to become infected to reach the herd immunity threshold. Experts estimate that in the U.S., 70% of the population — more than 200 million people — would have to recover from COVID-19 to halt the epidemic. If many people become sick with COVID-19 at once, the health care system could quickly become overwhelmed. This amount of infection could also lead to serious complications and millions of deaths, especially among older people and those who have chronic conditions.

In other words relying on natural infection rather than vaccination for developing herd immunity is a much higher risk strategy for the old, chronic sick and health care professionals.

Some very interesting points.

My comments:

Achieving herd immunity via vaccine is far safer than achieving it via the natural route, agreed, but we should keep in mind that whatever reservations we have regarding the long-term effectiveness of immunity awarded by the presence of antibodies, is likely to apply equally to both naturally-gained immunity and vaccine-generated immunity.

While complete herd immunity (the virus dying-out and disappearing from human hosts altogether) may only be achieved when we get to 60% or 70% of the population consisting of recovered patients, any percentage above zero will help reduce the transmission rate and depress the R value thus slowing-down the spread of the disease, even if it will not eliminate it altogether.

But whether this is a good or bad thing will of course depend on one's point of view. From the economic perspective, a 'let's get it over and done with in the shortrest possible time frame' will be the cheapest way of dealing with the pandemic, while from the medical perspective reducing the intensity and dragging this process over the longest period of time possible will result in the least number of deaths.

 

[st13phil]

In other words relying on natural infection rather than vaccination for developing herd immunity is a much higher risk strategy for the old, chronic sick and health care professionals.

I don't think anyone (apart from the rabid "anti-vaxxers") disputes that vaccination is preferable to infection with a disease as the way to develop immunity (or at the very least, a partial barrier to infection), but it is ultimately a combination of vaccination and prior infection that provides the hostile environment that causes the virus to die out.

For whatever reason, we keep going around the same arguments regarding herd immunity. There was a false story - completely debunked by the SAGE Committee Minutes if anyone cares to read them - that at the start of the pandemic the UK scientific advisers and the UK government had a laissez-faire strategy of letting Coronavirus run free so that the populace became infected and thus developed herd immunity. Perhaps political prejudice is the source of the fascination?

 

[markjay]

I don't think anyone (apart from the rabid "anti-vaxxers") disputes that vaccination is preferable to infection with a disease as the way to develop immunity (or at the very least, a partial barrier to infection), but it is ultimately a combination of vaccination and prior infection that provides the hostile environment that causes the virus to die out.

For whatever reason, we keep going around the same arguments regarding herd immunity. There was a false story - completely debunked by the SAGE Committee Minutes if anyone cares to read them - that at the start of the pandemic the UK scientific advisers and the UK government had a laissez-faire strategy of letting Coronavirus run free so that the populace became infected and thus developed herd immunity. Perhaps political prejudice is the source of the fascination?

From memory, what was discussed in the initial COVID-19 press briefing was achieving herd immunity through a managed process of restrictions (not a complete lock down) that will be gradually imposed 'at the right time. So it seems that the original idea was to try and get the R value low without depressing it altogether. It may have been a bit too aspirational though, because as we know now it is nigh-on impossible to micromanage the spread of infections in this way, or in other words sailing close to the wind was not really an option here.

 

[Larkone]

Herd immunity assumes that you are prepared to accept a significant proportion of those that get infected will die until the population has been culled of all off those that cannot survive catching Covid-19. Beyond that there is also the long tail of those that are left with longterm damage - another drain on the NHS. The current strategy is based around reducing the load on the NHS to a manageable level, they haven't developed any strategy beyond working on a possible virus.

 

[grober]

From memory, what was discussed in the initial COVID-19 press briefing was achieving herd immunity through a managed process of restrictions (not a complete lock down) that will be gradually imposed 'at the right time. So it seems that the original idea was to try and get the R value low without depressing it altogether. It may have been a bit too aspirational though, because as we know now it is nigh-on impossible to micromanage the spread of infections in this way, or in other words sailing close to the wind was not really an option here.

I believe that the initial opposition from some quarters to the " achieving herd immunity through a managed process of restrictions (not a complete lock down)" plan stemmed from a recognition that the necessary tools for such an approach to be successful such as early tracking and testing for infection levels in the general populace were pretty non existent at that time. While things have markedly improved now the debate on the inadequacy of even present day arrangements continues as restrictions are eased and the new systems are finally put to the test