O/T Covid-19 - Discussion for the duration of this crisis. | Page 120 | Vital Football

O/T Covid-19 - Discussion for the duration of this crisis.

i wear a mask when I know I am going into a supermarket/closed indoor space and it sometimes makes me cough after wearing it for 'not' too long, so I can imagine what you say has legs.

Be careful Greavsie, I don't know what type you are wearing, but literally multi-millons of cheap useless masks flooded the market early on that had some pretty nasty chemicals in, many have been traced and burnt, but there was too many to effectively track - they are largely inadequate also - so may well be best for you to try and buy a better mask(s) and dump the ones you have - proper masks (unless you have a hint of COPD or an asthma/pollen issue) won't induce coughing.

Just in case you have compromised your lungs in anyway and or simply want to make them stronger / more capable to resist covid induced problems - follow these guidelines until you feel them strengthing and easing your breathing (may take a couple of months):

https://www.healthline.com/health/copd/breathing-exercises#2-coordinated-breathing
 
Thanks for the care and warning Ex.

The masks I bought come with aspirator and replaceable filters and are classified N95 protection and the reason I sometimes cough is that as they are washable I usually soak them on return from use in water with disinfectant and then let them dry naturally before re-use (as I have 6 of them).

So on analysis it is the smell of the disinfectant that is embedded in the cloth that tends to give me an intermittent cough...just a couple of coughs then ok,

I only wear them for 10 mins max anyway until I exit the store.

I think in hindsight, once they are dry I will soak them again in plain water for a while and dry them naturally again in future to remove the residue of the disinfectant.

As for lung capacity mine is fine ...67 year old and I can still swim 40 lengths at a reasonably fast pace 20 mis approx (Crawl not breast) daily when I have access to a pool / 'water' and do sometimes use the sea where I live if the water is clear and the tide incoming so that the few local houseboats crap is not being discharged which obviously they can only do when the tide is ebbing!

My preference thus is a pool of course.

Many thanks mate.
 
Thanks for the care and warning Ex.

The masks I bought come with aspirator and replaceable filters and are classified N95 protection and the reason I sometimes cough is that as they are washable I usually soak them on return from use in water with disinfectant and then let them dry naturally before re-use (as I have 6 of them).

So on analysis it is the smell of the disinfectant that is embedded in the cloth that tends to give me an intermittent cough...just a couple of coughs then ok,

I only wear them for 10 mins max anyway until I exit the store.

I think in hindsight, once they are dry I will soak them again in plain water for a while and dry them naturally again in future to remove the residue of the disinfectant.

As for lung capacity mine is fine ...67 year old and I can still swim 40 lengths at a reasonably fast pace 20 mis approx (Crawl not breast) daily when I have access to a pool / 'water' and do sometimes use the sea where I live if the water is clear and the tide incoming so that the few local houseboats crap is not being discharged which obviously they can only do when the tide is ebbing!

My preference thus is a pool of course.

Many thanks mate.
That's a fair old pace. I stopped swimming a few years ago because of my shoulder but used to swim 80 lengths (of 25m). My fastest time was 45 secs, so pro rata 22.5 minutes. Some days it was as slow as 50 minutes. I could never understand such significant variations in my times. I used to swim at the same time every morning. And there were days I felt really good in the pool and look up at the time and it was 48 or 49 minutes. And vice versa on other days when it felt like I was struggling.
 
The scientists numbers are growing in being uncomfortable about relaxation of the rules. Now 7 SAGE members and many other non sage. The govt always said they will follow the science. Although it's not unanimous it's not insignificant numbers expressing disapproval.
 
The scientists numbers are growing in being uncomfortable about relaxation of the rules. Now 7 SAGE members and many other non sage. The govt always said they will follow the science. Although it's not unanimous it's not insignificant numbers expressing disapproval.


Only when the advice suits their political agenda...else they ride roughshod over it...chancers so they are..they know not what they do!
 
The scientists numbers are growing in being uncomfortable about relaxation of the rules. Now 7 SAGE members and many other non sage. The govt always said they will follow the science. Although it's not unanimous it's not insignificant numbers expressing disapproval.
I hope BoJo hasn't eased the lockdown to regain popularity after the Cummings debacle. That would be really poor leadership.
 
From what I understand of the scientists advice it is basically the we should remain in total lockdown until a vaccine is available since this is the only way to avoid a new wave of infections over and above the 6-8000 a day that we were experiencing throughout most of lockdown anyway. SDo there was already a trade-off taking place during lockdown because we couldn't shut down completely otherwise there would be no services at all.

Given that the virus is still actively infecting 6-8000 people a day and those people are going to come into contact with a largely non-immunised population it would seem rational to assume that infection rates will rise, but with the public awareness of social distancing rules that increase may not be as huge as could be expected.

From the economy's point of view, to wait for a vaccine is not an option....maybe the Oxford one will prove effective enough to be regarded as a treatment at least and maybe it will be available in September....maybe some of the other vaccines on trial will be even better and maybe none of them will work.....we cannot stay shut down forever as a country....individuals can choose to do that if they wish, but the bulk of economic activity needs to be reactivated as soon as possible.

With that comes risk and it is a political judgement....you can call it money vs lives but as has been pointed out before there are almost as many lives suffering that have nothing to do with Covid-19 directly, just indirectly through lack of treatments due to resources diverted to Covid.

At some point we are going to have to come to terms with the fact that we will have to live with this virus for the forseeable future by observing social distancing, hand washing and choosing environments that we are happy to expose ourselves to.
 
At least in the work environment there is a degree of control and social distancing is being enforced as much as is practicable. But away from the work environment it seems more problematic. A lot of people (mainly younger) seem to be ignoring social distancing altogether. In fact there was a video on Sky News earlier this week of a brawl between 30-40 people on a beach in Kent.
 
One of my mates has it. At the moment not much wrong with him. Just the loss of smell and taste at the moment.

He doesn't seem bothered.
Does he know where he got it, if you don't mind me asking? I'd like to see a breakdown of how all the 2,000 or so new cases each day are still picking up the virus. With the majority of the population under lockdown for the last two months surely we should have gone through the full cycle from those who picked it up and passed it on. Unless it is mainly frontline workers but most of those have had PPE for the last few weeks.
 
Coronavirus test to predict who will suffer severe symptoms being developed by Cambridge scientists

The test could solve the frustration felt by those who are over 70 and classified as vulnerable but may not be affected by the virus

By Steve Bird 30 May 2020 • 12:02pm

2020-05-30_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.jpgimwidth=480



Cambridge University scientists are developing a test to predict who is most likely to suffer severe or minor symptoms if they catch Covid-19.
It is hoped analysis of people’s “molecular fingerprint” - the combinations of chemicals in a persons’ body - will reveal a biochemical pattern that predicts who is most at risk and who is likely to barely notice if they get coronavirus.
The research, which is being conducted in partnership with a specialist laboratory in Australia, could solve the frustration felt by those who are over 70 and classified as being vulnerable and told to stay home despite being fit and healthy.
If successful the project would mean those who turn out to be relatively resistant to Covid-19, but might otherwise have regarded themselves as at high risk, can feel more confident about venturing out or returning to work.
Dr Chris Smith, a virologist who is leading the UK side of the research, said establishing “biomarkers” obtained from blood and urine could create a simple, fast and cheap system to to identify those at most and least risk. While it would not technically provide a so-called “immunity passport”, it could help people make informed choices about how they behave until a vaccine is found.
Samples from British patients stored at Cambridge will be sent to the Australian National Phenome Centre (ANPC), in Perth, where they will be analysed for their biochemical characteristics to establish why people react so differently to the disease.

The laboratory is using state-of-the-art mass spectrometry and data modelling to build up a picture of biomarkers to try to beat the unique element of the disease - its wide variation in both symptoms and severity.
Dr Smith said: “We know that only a small fraction of people who get this virus are going to have a problem with it. What we don’t know is, who those people are, until they have already caught it, but by then it may be too late.
“So, is there a molecular fingerprint in a person that will tell us who is at risk and who isn’t?
“Some people are saying let’s sequence the DNA, but it’s really laborious sequencing DNA and it may not actually tell whether you are vulnerable. It just tells you about the recipe book that runs your body, not how the environment you live in, or your lifestyle, is interacting with your genetic makeup to affect your risk.
“But if you take a blood or urine sample, at the phenome centre we can look at the thousands of different molecules that are in the average person. We can analyse the different molecules present - for instance, the level of salt, potassium, chlorine - to get a unique chemical fingerprint.
“That chemical fingerprint - called a phenome - is predictive of how a person’s body is working. If we take people who have had coronavirus and recovered without any trouble and compare their chemical fingerprints with those who have caught coronavirus and nearly died or did die, we are hoping to find a molecular fingerprint of one over the other.”
Dr Smith is hoping to enlist the support of the Royal Australian Air Force to fly UK samples from Cambridge to the specialist lab in Perth.
“That test could mean you can tell someone who is 80 who may be regarded as being in the shielding group, that they can stop worrying and go out,” added Dr Smith, whose research will appear in his podcast as well as feature on the BBC radio show 5 Live Science.
Professor Jeremy Nicholson, who runs the ANPC labs in Western Australia, said he hopes the research could solve the unique challenges posed by Covid-19; a disease which can cause wide ranging severe symptoms or none at all.
 
We will have learned a lot, including how to do it better next time - that is science
Science advice to Government needs to be direct and given without fear or favour

Patrick Vallance 30 May 2020 • 9:30pm
patrick-vallance-small.png



Debate and challenge is at the very heart of how scientific advances are made and new knowledge is gained. By definition we often don’t know the answers to the questions we ask.
And right now, during a global pandemic, people are understandably concerned and worried about what the future holds and are looking to the science for answers.
As we wrestle with this disease, I want to explain a bit about the scientific advice being given to the Government about coronavirus and the people working morning, noon and night to help us navigate this new disease. Perhaps now is a good time to clarify exactly what Sage is, and what it is not.
Sage stood up for Government emergencies at the request of Cobr (the civil contingencies committee), and when the emergency is a health one it is co-chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and the Chief Medical Officer. It is made up of scientists with diverse relevant expertise, who for this emergency have since January been crunching data, analysing information and giving frank and objective advice. The participants vary depending on the topic and the expertise needed, but there has been a core of scientists who have attended most meetings. For Covid it has included academics, clinicians, departmental chief scientific advisers and scientists from the NHS, Public Health England and other governmental bodies including the devolved administrations.
Good science involves sharing findings and interpretations for others to challenge, build on and replicate. Scientists publish their models, methods and results and subject them to review by their peers, for critique and reuse by others. If you sign up to science, you sign up to the idea that others should review your work. We learn from each other and we learn from mistakes. This week we have published a further batch of papers from Sage to show some of the evidence behind the advice that has gone to ministers. Clearly it is right that ministers see the advice first and that they have a chance to consider it as part of their overall decision making, but I believe it is also right that the evidence base should become open for others to see too, so they can provide challenge and form new and important observations.

Science advice to Cobr and to ministers needs to be direct and given without fear or favour. But it is advice. Ministers must decide and have to take many other factors into consideration. In a democracy, that is the only way it should be. The science advice needs to be independent of politics.
In the past, evidence from Sage has been published at the end of the particular crisis it was called for. In the days before Sage existed science advice to government was often not published at all. When it comes to this crisis it is clear we must get the information out as soon as possible, and in my opinion, as close to real time as is feasible and compatible with allowing ministers the time they need.
As the Sage papers become available it is possible to track the evolution of thinking. It is possible to see how unknowns became known and where significant gaps in knowledge still exist. The papers also provide a chance to correct some of the misconceptions that have taken hold. Allowing many people to catch Covid to create widespread immunity was never an aim and never could have been with a committee comprised of many doctors who have spent their lives dedicated to improving health. Immunity on the other hand is something that prevents transmission and we all hope that a vaccine to induce immunity will become available.
Sage is not an infallible body of experts and nor is there cosy group think. There is a range of opinions in all of discussions and there is wide reading of the latest research, but what Sage endeavours to do is come down to a position or a range of positions, to provide options ministers could consider and explain the uncertainties and assumptions inherent in that science and evidence. Sage is not a body that has any accountability for operational aspects whether that be testing, PPE or NHS delivery.
Is the evidence usually crystal clear? No. And you only need to pick up a newspaper or watch the TV to see how strongly different scientists have presented diametrically opposed ideas, and how some have flipped from certainty to uncertainty and back again. Will the advice from Sage always be right? No. Will the science change as we learn more? Of course, and we learn from scientists across the world. But the evidence we present to ministers will always be based on a careful analysis of the science available at the time, in line with both the Nolan principles and the Civil Service Code.
As a civil servant and the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, I am very aware of the responsibility and trust invested in me and the army of scientists and experts during this crisis. In the years to come, when this awful disease is no longer shaping all of our lives, I know I will look back with gratitude and admiration for what these individual scientists did to help understanding and provide advice in the face of uncertainty. I also know that we will have learned a lot, including how to do it better next time. That is science.
 
Every country in the world has a different methodology for calculating it's infection/ death toll. Having a track and trace system for the UK is totally impractical - but I think we'll learn that the hard way.

So tell me more about the impracticality concerns. I thought about 3 main ones when looking at this a couple of weeks back

1) I noticed these smart phone stats from 2019

16-24 - 100%
25-34 - 97%
35-44 - 91%
45-54 - 88%
55-64 - 73%
65+ - 40%

This means that only 80% of adults have smart phones with the older age groups less likely. That's an obvious constraint of using technology in this way.

2) COVID vs non-COVID symptoms. Most of the population will still self isolate with symptoms but not have a COVID test. They won't know whether they've had it or not unless they have a testing kit at home and might only have the test much later. So the contact tracking app is only as good as the access by the public to testing kits right? Otherwise, you're being notified on your phone about someone having normal flu symptoms.

3) People won't allow "big brother" on their phone in the first place so the adoption rates won't be enough to make much difference when you are out and about.

Are you thinking other flaws?
 
Coronavirus test to predict who will suffer severe symptoms being developed by Cambridge scientists

The test could solve the frustration felt by those who are over 70 and classified as vulnerable but may not be affected by the virus

By Steve Bird 30 May 2020 • 12:02pm

2020-05-30_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.jpgimwidth=480



Cambridge University scientists are developing a test to predict who is most likely to suffer severe or minor symptoms if they catch Covid-19.
It is hoped analysis of people’s “molecular fingerprint” - the combinations of chemicals in a persons’ body - will reveal a biochemical pattern that predicts who is most at risk and who is likely to barely notice if they get coronavirus.
The research, which is being conducted in partnership with a specialist laboratory in Australia, could solve the frustration felt by those who are over 70 and classified as being vulnerable and told to stay home despite being fit and healthy.
If successful the project would mean those who turn out to be relatively resistant to Covid-19, but might otherwise have regarded themselves as at high risk, can feel more confident about venturing out or returning to work.
Dr Chris Smith, a virologist who is leading the UK side of the research, said establishing “biomarkers” obtained from blood and urine could create a simple, fast and cheap system to to identify those at most and least risk. While it would not technically provide a so-called “immunity passport”, it could help people make informed choices about how they behave until a vaccine is found.
Samples from British patients stored at Cambridge will be sent to the Australian National Phenome Centre (ANPC), in Perth, where they will be analysed for their biochemical characteristics to establish why people react so differently to the disease.

The laboratory is using state-of-the-art mass spectrometry and data modelling to build up a picture of biomarkers to try to beat the unique element of the disease - its wide variation in both symptoms and severity.
Dr Smith said: “We know that only a small fraction of people who get this virus are going to have a problem with it. What we don’t know is, who those people are, until they have already caught it, but by then it may be too late.
“So, is there a molecular fingerprint in a person that will tell us who is at risk and who isn’t?
“Some people are saying let’s sequence the DNA, but it’s really laborious sequencing DNA and it may not actually tell whether you are vulnerable. It just tells you about the recipe book that runs your body, not how the environment you live in, or your lifestyle, is interacting with your genetic makeup to affect your risk.
“But if you take a blood or urine sample, at the phenome centre we can look at the thousands of different molecules that are in the average person. We can analyse the different molecules present - for instance, the level of salt, potassium, chlorine - to get a unique chemical fingerprint.
“That chemical fingerprint - called a phenome - is predictive of how a person’s body is working. If we take people who have had coronavirus and recovered without any trouble and compare their chemical fingerprints with those who have caught coronavirus and nearly died or did die, we are hoping to find a molecular fingerprint of one over the other.”
Dr Smith is hoping to enlist the support of the Royal Australian Air Force to fly UK samples from Cambridge to the specialist lab in Perth.
“That test could mean you can tell someone who is 80 who may be regarded as being in the shielding group, that they can stop worrying and go out,” added Dr Smith, whose research will appear in his podcast as well as feature on the BBC radio show 5 Live Science.
Professor Jeremy Nicholson, who runs the ANPC labs in Western Australia, said he hopes the research could solve the unique challenges posed by Covid-19; a disease which can cause wide ranging severe symptoms or none at all.
Great innovative and lateral thinking...hope they solve the puzzle soon....saw a clip of the technology being deployed....so many really clever people in the world...amazing.
 
So tell me more about the impracticality concerns. I thought about 3 main ones when looking at this a couple of weeks back

1) I noticed these smart phone stats from 2019

16-24 - 100%
25-34 - 97%
35-44 - 91%
45-54 - 88%
55-64 - 73%
65+ - 40%

This means that only 80% of adults have smart phones with the older age groups less likely. That's an obvious constraint of using technology in this way.

2) COVID vs non-COVID symptoms. Most of the population will still self isolate with symptoms but not have a COVID test. They won't know whether they've had it or not unless they have a testing kit at home and might only have the test much later. So the contact tracking app is only as good as the access by the public to testing kits right? Otherwise, you're being notified on your phone about someone having normal flu symptoms.

3) People won't allow "big brother" on their phone in the first place so the adoption rates won't be enough to make much difference when you are out and about.

Are you thinking other flaws?
I think if I get symptoms , and have been close to people whom I know , and have their contact details , I will tell them myself .
if I had been close to people that I didn’t know , and had no way of knowing , then I can’t see how the system would help. Except of course for the big brother state ,but then I have paid no attention to the details , do I could be talking a load of tosh . As I frequently do !