Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[andysays]

Nope, the reasons have not been explained.

I did kinda think anarchism was about not blindly following government dictats, yes.

As I mentioned a few posts ago, for example, the tests are less accurate if you haven't developed symptoms.

And absolutely no one is saying follow the government dictats blindly.

Your choice of words and your refusal to acknowledge the (at least) ambiguity around some of the issues is in danger of making you sound like a denialist. You'll be calling the rest of us sheeple before you know it...

 

[Thora]

Well, you're not going to become positive from that particular exposure, if you isolate. You could still develop symptoms or be exposed another time, and that's when you'd get another test.

But you could test positive at any point during the 14 days after exposure though couldn't you? So you might get a negative on day 3, but a positive on day 4? That's how I understood the 14 day isolation period.

 

[Raheem]

Being an anarchist, if that's what you aspire to, doesn't mean ignoring traffic lights.

 

[Orang Utan]

As I mentioned a few posts ago, for example, the tests are less accurate if you haven't developed symptoms.

And absolutely no one is saying follow the government dictats blindly.

Your choice of words and your refusal to acknowledge the (at least) ambiguity around some of the issues is in danger of making you sound like a denialist. You'll be calling the rest of us sheeple before you know it...

Pipe down, Hector

 

[scifisam]

As I mentioned a few posts ago, the tests are less accurate if you haven't developed symptoms.

And absolutely no one is saying follow the government dictats blindly.

Your choice of words and your refusal to acknowledge the (at least) ambiguity around some of the issues is in danger of making you sound like a denialist. You'll be calling the rest of us sheeple before you know it...

They're not less accurate for positive results - it's false negatives where the issues lie. Which is why you're advised to still self-isolate after a negative test. Knowing OU, and his general concern for other people, he would still self-isolate.

Lots of people on here have been saying to follow the govt dictats blindly. That is what we're arguing about right this moment.

And seriously, fuck off with the insults. That is totally fucking out of order.

 

[editor]

What's the justification here?

So bands can rehearse for the live shows they're never going to play and earn some money they're never going to get.

 

[scifisam]

But you could test positive at any point during the 14 days after exposure though couldn't you? So you might get a negative on day 3, but a positive on day 4? That's how I understood the 14 day isolation period.

Isn't that due to the problem with false negatives? It doesn't mean you can actually develop the disease after testing negative - if you're isolating - just that the negative test was incorrect. And that's why there's an isolation period.

 

[LDC]

Nope, the reasons have not been explained.

I did kinda think anarchism was about not blindly following government dictats, yes.

Unreliability of tests when no symptoms, false sense of security if test -tive, and unnecessary use of resources.

Right, I'm off to jump in my car after a few pints, fuck blindly following that government no drunk driving dictat, down with the fascist state comrades.

 

[Cid]

Why don't you support that idea, when experts who work in this area do? Why should I believe you over all of them?

Even articles with scary headlines, like this one, end up admitting that there have only been a few cases of reinfection found out of 37 million.

Covid reinfection: Man gets Covid twice and second hit 'more severe'

The report raises questions about how much immunity can be built up to the virus and how long it may last.

www.bbc.co.uk

Do you actually, seriously, disagree that having it once means you're "much less likely" to get it again?

If you do it would mean that a vaccine is pointless. So maybe we shouldn't bother with that.

There are only a few confirmed cases. This is because you need to sequence the genetics of the virus in both infections. Since afaik samples aren’t generally stored, that means detection is only going to happen within studies that are specifically looking at these things.

 

[kalidarkone]

Isn't there still an issue about the tests being less accurate if you have been infected but haven't yet developed symptoms?

Not sure about likely time scales here though.

Not everyone that is positive develops symptoms though.....that's part of the problem and why they are trialing testing people without symptoms in Liverpool.

 

[Thora]

I just don't see what you even gain by lying to get a test if you are isolating anyway and a negative doesn't stop you isolating

 

[Orang Utan]

I just don't see what you even gain by lying to get a test if you are isolating anyway and a negative doesn't stop you isolating

aye, it's just one more thing to lose sleep over and i'm having trouble enough as it is

 

[scifisam]

There are only a few confirmed cases. This is because you need to sequence the genetics of the virus in both infections. Since afaik samples aren’t generally stored, that means detection is only going to happen within studies that are specifically looking at these things.

I don't think that's true. The few cases that have been found have been people who caught it, then tested positive again, and their tests were compared. They weren't in any specific studies, they were just ill, and got tested again. That indicates that the results are stored somehow, even if the actual samples aren't.

Covid-19 is a novel virus, but that doesn't mean it's going to act completely differently to every other virus in every way. It's a virus, not a magic spell.

If repeat infections were anything other than extremely unusual, we'd have noticed by now. For example, in Italy, you have to test negative in order to get on a plane. You don't escape the test just because you've already had the virus. That would have caught some repeat infections by now, wouldn't it? Even with lower test reliability (because of the way they're processed), they'd have picked up some repeat infections, if they were in any way common. But we're talking literally single numbers of people worldwide, including in countries where there's lots of repeat testing.

I'm still going to wear a mask and socially distance partly in order to keep up the social pressure on everyone else to do that, too. But I'm nowhere near as worried about contracting it as I was before I did contract it, and it's honestly bizarre to be told that this is unreasonable. Is it a guarantee? No. Is it hugely less likely? Yes.

 

[scifisam]

I just don't see what you even gain by lying to get a test if you are isolating anyway and a negative doesn't stop you isolating

Because, if it's positive, knowing that you've had it without getting ill, and are therefore much less likely to get it and get ill, or make anyone else ill. For me as a vulnerable person, that's a relief.

This depends on believing the science that says that a literal handful of people worldwide have developed it twice, but I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to believe. There's been a huge amount of money and resources plugged into this in every country.

We can't know what the long-term effects are, exactly, because the virus is new, so the scientists can only extrapolate from what happens with similar viruses. But short term the evidence is pretty conclusive.

 

[Looby]

OK. But it would be more responsible to get the test. Then if you test positive you know you need to stay at home for longer. You'll also know that you are much less at risk for future infections, either getting them or passing them on.

It's not crying wolf.

It is a little odd that an anarchist board actually has so many people very much in favour of blindly following rules.

That only works if you have a test at the end of your isolation period. Someone could test negative today and positive in 3 days during the potential incubation period. It’s not about wasting resources for me but about giving people a false sense of confidence.
I do actually think that everyone should get tested at the end of their period of isolation.

 

[scifisam]

That only works if you have a test at the end of your isolation period. Someone could test negative today and positive in 3 days. It’s not about wasting resources for me but about giving people a false sense of confidence.
I do actually think that everyone should get tested at the end of their period of isolation.

Same as I said to Thora - I don't think you can test negative today and positive in three days, if you're isolating, unless the test gives you a false negative. The false negatives are still running at a high rate, hence the isolation period. You don't actually develop the disease in that interval, you just take a more accurate test.

 

[Looby]

Same as I said to Thora - I don't think you can test negative today and positive in three days, if you're isolating, unless the test gives you a false negative. The false negatives are still running at a high rate, hence the isolation period. You don't actually develop the disease in that interval, you just take a more accurate test.

My understanding is this is about incubation periods not false negatives.
Person 1 tests positive
Person 2 saw person 1 the day before the positive test.
Person 2 is told to isolate for 14 days but gets tested on day 2 and it’s negative.
If the incubation period is up to 14 days then person 2 could develop symptoms or test positive on day 4 or 7 from the same exposure.
That first test only tells us that person 2 wasn’t testing positive on that day.
If this was wrong then the whole point of isolating goes out of the window and people could just get tested and crack on.

 

[Cid]

I don't think that's true. The few cases that have been found have been people who caught it, then tested positive again, and their tests were compared. They weren't in any specific studies, they were just ill, and got tested again. That indicates that the results are stored somehow, even if the actual samples aren't.

I mean you could just look up the studies. You have to genetically sequence both tests to eliminate factors like false positives, inactive rna, or some kind of longer infection. I don’t know the details of how they do this... perhaps some places routinely store a subset of samples, though that might be ethically dubious. Or perhaps it’s that a certain subset are asked if their samples can be stored. But they certainly aren’t going to store millions of test samples.

Covid-19 is a novel virus, but that doesn't mean it's going to act completely differently to every other virus in every way. It's a virus, not a magic spell.

If repeat infections were anything other than extremely unusual, we'd have noticed by now. For example, in Italy, you have to test negative in order to get on a plane. You don't escape the test just because you've already had the virus. That would have caught some repeat infections by now, wouldn't it? Even with lower test reliability (because of the way they're processed), they'd have picked up some repeat infections, if they were in any way common. But we're talking literally single numbers of people worldwide, including in countries where there's lots of repeat testing.

I'm still going to wear a mask and socially distance partly in order to keep up the social pressure on everyone else to do that, too. But I'm nowhere near as worried about contracting it as I was before I did contract it, and it's honestly bizarre to be told that this is unreasonable. Is it a guarantee? No. Is it hugely less likely? Yes.

I mean why do you think flu vaccines are annual? Immunity is variable. For all I know these reinfections may be very rare. But when you say that the scientific consensus is that they are, it’s just wrong. The consensus in all the material I’ve read is ‘well we know it can happen, but not much more than that’.

 

[scifisam]

Person 1 tests positive
Person 2 saw person 1 the day before the positive test.
Person 2 is told to isolate for 14 days but gets tested on day 2 and it’s negative.
If the incubation period is up to 14 days then person 2 could develop symptoms or test positive on day 4 or 7 from the same exposure.
That first test only tells us that person 2 didn’t have it on that day.
If this was wrong then the whole point of isolating goes out of the window and people could just get tested abs crack on.

The incubation period is for symptoms, not for testing positive. The NHS tests check for the presence of the virus, and you can test positive without having symptoms (obviously). There's a high error rate, so there is a point in having an isolation period.

 

[scifisam]

I mean you could just look up the studies. You have to genetically sequence both tests to eliminate factors like false positives, inactive rna, or some kind of longer infection. I don’t know the details of how they do this... perhaps some places routinely store a subset of samples, though that might be ethically dubious. Or perhaps it’s that a certain subset are asked if their samples can be stored. But they certainly aren’t going to store millions of test samples.

I looked up articles about the cases that have been identified. They weren't in studies, they were people that had been identified.

Maybe you could point me towards the studies you think I'm missing.

I mean why do you think flu vaccines are annual? Immunity is variable. For all I know these reinfections may be very rare. But when you say that the scientific consensus is that they are, it’s just wrong. The consensus in all the material I’ve read is ‘well we know it can happen, but not much more than that’.

Because they're vaccinating for different strains of the flu. The problem isn't catching the same strain repeatedly, it's that the flu virus mutates quickly. Coronaviruses in general mutate more slowly, and this one hasn't been shown to mutate yet. It might well mutate eventually (it's even likely, though how much it mutates is important), so repeated infection might be an issue in the long term. Then we might need annual immunisations like we do with the flu, or we might need them more on the schedule of vaccinations against viral pneumonia - we'll have to wait and see.

COVID-19: Is the virus mutating? | BBC Science Focus Magazine

Occasionally, viruses mutate in a way that gives them an advantage in spreading through the population.

www.sciencefocus.com

Even if mutates eventually, that doesn't mean that having covid now doesn't offer any protection against further infections, especially in the short to medium term. It would be extremely strange if it didn't, and all the circumstantial evidence says the same.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

Well, it seems like we also have mink COVID now...

 

[Cid]

I looked up articles about the cases that have been identified. They weren't in studies, they were people that had been identified.

Maybe you could point me towards the studies you think I'm missing.



Because they're vaccinating for different strains of the flu. The problem isn't catching the same strain repeatedly, it's that the flu virus mutates quickly. Coronaviruses in general mutate more slowly, and this one hasn't been shown to mutate yet. It might well mutate eventually (it's even likely, though how much it mutates is important), so repeated infection might be an issue in the long term. Then we might need annual immunisations like we do with the flu, or we might need them more on the schedule of vaccinations against viral pneumonia - we'll have to wait and see.

COVID-19: Is the virus mutating? | BBC Science Focus Magazine

Occasionally, viruses mutate in a way that gives them an advantage in spreading through the population.

www.sciencefocus.com

Even if mutates eventually, that doesn't mean that having covid now doesn't offer any protection against further infections, especially in the short to medium term. It would be extremely strange if it didn't, and all the circumstantial evidence says the same.

I don’t know the science. It’s complex... as far as I understand reinfections are from forms of the virus that are a bit different, but similar enough that a vaccine would still be useful. And sure, infection is probably going to mean medium term immunity... but the point is that reinfections can occur, and that the science around that is still very unclear.

What reinfections mean for COVID-19

One of the key questions in predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is how well and how long the immune responses protect the host from reinfection. For some viruses, the first infection can provide lifelong...

www.thelancet.com

 

[Orang Utan]

It’s lovely to read a debate about epidemiology conducted by amateurs

 

[IC3D]

Common colds can be Corona virus and mutate.

Coronaviruses (CoVs) are enveloped positive-strand RNA viruses from the Coronaviridae family. Five members have been reported to infect humans, including 229E, OC43, the newly discovered NL63 and HKU1, and the emerging SARS-CoV. Human CoVs (HCoVs) 229E and NL63 are closely related and belong to the alphacoronavirus genus, whereas OC43, HKU1, and SARS-CoV belong to betacoronavirus genus. HCoVs infect airways and are responsible for different respiratory diseases (19, 44). Although the SARS-CoV was associated with a severe acute respiratory disease during the 2002–2003 pandemic, most HCoVs cause only a mild respiratory infection (49). Epidemiological studies suggest that HCoVs account for 15 to 30% of common colds, with only occasional spreading to the lower respiratory tract. Airway epithelial cells represent the primary target of infection (19, 44). Nevertheless, in vitro experiments demonstrate that other cell types can be infected. For example, HCoV-229E was reported to infect and replicate in neural cells, hepatocytes, monocytes, and macrophages (3, 11, 12). The neurotropism of HCoV-229E and OC43 has also been documented in vivo, and a possible association with multiple sclerosis has been suggested

A Human Coronavirus Responsible for the Common Cold Massively Kills Dendritic Cells but Not Monocytes

Human coronaviruses are associated with upper respiratory tract infections that occasionally spread to the lungs and other organs. Although airway epithelial cells represent an important target for infection, the respiratory epithelium is also composed ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[IC3D]

It’s lovely to read a debate about epidemiology conducted by amateurs

The references are exciteing though

 

[miss direct]

I feel really annoyed at someone I know, who's just arrived in London from another country, and should be in quarantine, but instead is posting photos of her walks around the city!

 

[platinumsage]

I feel really annoyed at someone I know, who's just arrived in London from another country, and should be in quarantine, but instead is posting photos of her walks around the city!

Quarantine for arrivals is a joke here. It should be mandatory confinement in e.g. an airport hotel, which are basically empty anyway, until you test negative.

 

[scifisam]

It’s lovely to read a debate about epidemiology conducted by amateurs

Yeah. But all of us here are amateurs, including the ones disagreeing with me when I say that having the virus once means it's less likely that you'll get it again.

I don’t know the science. It’s complex... as far as I understand reinfections are from forms of the virus that are a bit different, but similar enough that a vaccine would still be useful. And sure, infection is probably going to mean medium term immunity... but the point is that reinfections can occur, and that the science around that is still very unclear.

What reinfections mean for COVID-19

One of the key questions in predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is how well and how long the immune responses protect the host from reinfection. For some viruses, the first infection can provide lifelong...

www.thelancet.com

The point is that reinfections have so far reoccurred in a tiny number of people, and having the virus now does confer immunity in the short to medium term, possibly longer.

Which is not only my point, but the entire point of trying to make a vaccine. Honestly, if it was as hopeless as some people on here imply, we shouldn't bother with a vaccine at all, because if actually being infected confers no immunity, then a vaccine won't either. Am I writing in gibberish or something? Because I've stated that a couple of times and I don't really see why people are arguing with it.

Fucking stupid argument. I'm only engaging because I'm avoiding doing things I don't want to do - going to give up and back out now.

 

[miss direct]

I rushed back to the UK in June before they brought the quarantine rule in, spent loads of money on a stupid indirect flight via Minsk, hated it all, then when I did arrive, barely went out, kept a massive distance between myself and others.

 

[Cid]

Yeah. But all of us here are amateurs, including the ones disagreeing with me when I say that having the virus once means it's less likely that you'll get it again.



The point is that reinfections have so far reoccurred in a tiny number of people, and having the virus now does confer immunity in the short to medium term, possibly longer.

Which is not only my point, but the entire point of trying to make a vaccine. Honestly, if it was as hopeless as some people on here imply, we shouldn't bother with a vaccine at all, because if actually being infected confers no immunity, then a vaccine won't either. Am I writing in gibberish or something? Because I've stated that a couple of times and I don't really see why people are arguing with it.

Fucking stupid argument. I'm only engaging because I'm avoiding doing things I don't want to do - going to give up and back out now.

The point that you’re not getting is that the tiny number of detected reinfections tells us precisely fuck all about the actual rate. I mean forgive me if I give a bit more weight to someone writing in the lancet than I give to your opinion, but there you go.

For what it’s worth I’m kind of working on similar assumptions, but it’s just daft to go around making definitive statements when the actual researchers are saying ‘honestly we’re not sure’.