Coronavirus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

My thoughts for what they are worth:

Covid 19 reacting T cells would be a more accurate description surely - and how do we know this is not cross reactivity with other Coronaviruses? And they have no antibodies, as that is an easier and more specific test - and they have not yet had Covid 19.

Most have not yet had it; whenever Covid 19 is given a chance - particularly inside with lots of vocal activity - it takes it. The idea that more must have had it is widespread, but I think its proponents under estimate the changes that most people have made to reduce their risk - partly voluntary, partly imposed.

I know the WHO have got a lot wrong, but I think their most recent report was about right.

Do remember - people without symptoms can and do spread it; 2 metres is better than 1 metre - 5 metres is better still; mixing with others inside is much riskier than doing so outside.

---

Not sure if I'm understanding what you're saying in your first point.

According to the Swedish study

“Moreover, roughly 30 per cent of the blood donors who’d given blood in May 2020 had COVID-19-specific T cells, a figure that’s much higher than previous antibody tests have shown.”

So these are all people who had been in contact with the virus.

https://news.ki.se/immunity-to-covid...sts-have-shown

I suspect that you're right when you say that the majority have not had the virus (although they may have in some of the early hot spots like New York). But I'm open to the possibility that a lot more have had it than official estimates suggest based on antibody tests alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

The idea that more must have had it is widespread, but I think its proponents under estimate the changes that most people have made to reduce their risk - partly voluntary, partly imposed.

---

I don't under-estimate the changes at all. BUt there was a long time before we made any changes.

We had the virus here for over two months before anyone made any changes other than a week or two's hand washing in mid March prior to lockdown.

No one has yet give an inkling to how an R=4 ish virus has free rein in a population for up 10 weeks and hasn't infected more people, and that's before we get to add those that have caught it since lockdown.

Steph FYI, quite apart from the clear lack of viable test sets or proper testing of the antibody tests which were rushed through: so are not properly validated and all numbers are suspect)

the premise of these Tcell studies is that antibodies are NOT necessarily formed at all, but the Tcells remain as specific resistance with long term memory by identifying and reacting to covid specific peotides: even in population not exposed to covid itself. If that is true ( and the jury is still out) then antibody testing can never give estimates of herd immunity.

The possibility is past epidemics have left non specific resistance, and since many of these bugs start in bat/ bird populations in China, it can be supposed that resistance spreads to areas that interact with them.
That could be why China, South Korea and Hong Kong numbers are low compare to more distant populations like us.

There is a lot still unknown. That populations have reacted so differently, implies one countries policies are not the only indeed may not be the major contributor.

Ps - my thoughts are gleaned from OH, who ran a biotech lab as tech director, so knows a thing or two!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steph

The anti body testing data is not robust enough at the moment to provide accurate numbers on those who have been infected or what immunity can be expected.

The statistical reports out there from the scientific community advise up to a 30% infection rate for England, others have suggested about half that, I think the govt put a figure of nearly 20% for London back in May with the rest of the country lower, but certainly more than 5%, all very interesting stuff but you know what they say about stats.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever

Not sure if I'm understanding what you're saying in your first point.

According to the Swedish study

“Moreover, roughly 30 per cent of the blood donors who’d given blood in May 2020 had COVID-19-specific T cells, a figure that’s much higher than previous antibody tests have shown.”

So these are all people who had been in contact with the virus.

https://news.ki.se/immunity-to-covid...sts-have-shown

I suspect that you're right when you say that the majority have not had the virus (although they may have in some of the early hot spots like New York). But I'm open to the possibility that a lot more have had it than official estimates suggest based on antibody tests alone.

---

It looks like the T cells are "specific" for Covid 19, but they might be reacting to an identical or similar epitope - shape - on a different Coronavirus - so called cross reactivity. So they may not have been in contact with Covid 19, but one of the Coronaviruses that can cause the "common cold".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Not to pick over would or could :rolleyes:

---

Mmmh.

So I could die if I jump off this cliff and I would die if I jump off this cliff are pretty much the same to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

It looks like the T cells are "specific" for Covid 19, but they might be reacting to an identical or similar epitope - shape - on a different Coronavirus - so called cross reactivity. So they may not have been in contact with Covid 19, but one of the Coronaviruses that can cause the "common cold".

---

That isn't what they are saying.

New research from Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital shows that many people with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 demonstrate so-called T-cell-mediated immunity to the new coronavirus, even if they have not tested positively for antibodies. According to the researchers, this means that public immunity is probably higher than antibody tests suggest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

Mmmh.

So I could die if I jump off this cliff and I would die if I jump off this cliff are pretty much the same to you?

---

I can go back a few years to should and must, but I think it best not to :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever

That isn't what they are saying.

New research from Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital shows that many people with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 demonstrate so-called T-cell-mediated immunity to the new coronavirus, even if they have not tested positively for antibodies. According to the researchers, this means that public immunity is probably higher than antibody tests suggest.

---

Thanks for the correction - cross reactive immunity is almost certainly better than none.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

I don't under-estimate the changes at all. BUt there was a long time before we made any changes.

We had the virus here for over two months before anyone made any changes other than a week or two's hand washing in mid March prior to lockdown.

No one has yet give an inkling to how an R=4 ish virus has free rein in a population for up 10 weeks and hasn't infected more people, and that's before we get to add those that have caught it since lockdown.

---

I can only speak with certainty about myself and those I know - but my partner and I started changing our behaviour quite dramatically in early March, and I was advising those I know - club members, B+B owners, yoga attendees - to do the same; there will have been plenty of others doing this I'm sure. Of course there were those who refused to change their ways except where they had to, but they will have still been reducing their risk, even if they tried not to do so.

The situation in the US shows what can happen if you let it.

So they have been hiding the local pillar 2 data!

https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-...b-8e66933d423a

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

I can only speak with certainty about myself and those I know - but my partner and I started changing our behaviour quite dramatically in early March, and I was advising those I know - club members, B+B owners, yoga attendees - to do the same; there will have been plenty of others doing this I'm sure. Of course there were those who refused to change their ways except where they had to, but they will have still been reducing their risk, even if they tried not to do so.

The situation in the US shows what can happen if you let it.

---

I think that is the minority reaction Mike.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...t_of_March.pdf

look at slide one on transport use. No real drop off until after lockdown and the first to taper off was the tube.
It doesn't tell the whole story of course, but schools only started closing W/C 16th March. My wife works in a factory of 250 and when she finished for holiday on 20th March the only provision was hand sanitiser stations around the shopfloor. All was as normal in the place.

The track/stadium near me (one of the few tracks open in the Midlands) is hosting a couple of pilot open events on the 2nd & 3rd weekends in July. All above-board and in conjunction with EA.

No spectators, but will be streamed online. Track distances only up to 400mtrs (I expect as people then are confined to a single lane), as well as a selection of jump/throw events.

Online entry. If anybody is interested in entry details then let me know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Pedantic to a high level :D

---

Maybe you'll think it pedantic of me to pick you up on your misuse of the word pedantic, but here goes anyway. :D

I repeat what I said in my earlier post - you took something which had uncertainty attached to it and you removed that uncertainty completely. It isn't being pedantic (even at a low level) to object to that. It isn't being pedantic to want to differentiate between the concepts of possibility and certainty, and it isn't being pedantic to object to the embellishment (or perhaps I should say positive misrepresentation) of scientific findings.

I do take some pleasure in being pedantic on some occasions, but in this case I was merely being correct, and wished to see a modicum of integrity and rectitude from people who were commenting on an important issue.

So, pedantic, no. I would, however, have accepted insufferably pompous. (After all, I'm just trying to fit in on this forum.):D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle

Ps - my thoughts are gleaned from OH, who ran a biotech lab as tech director, so knows a thing or two!

---

Well, now. (I was going to start with 'Mmmh' but decided against it.) Forgive me for pointing out that the above doesn't mean that everything you post is factually correct though, does it?

Do you remember this (partial) exchange, on the "Todays permitted exercise!" thread?

[START]
26-03-2020, 11:30 AM #17
Oracle : "Wife says typically wont last longer than 72 hours on tissue. It’s a non encapsulated RNA virus. She should know as a biotech science director, that uses live virus. It can last longer on surfaces than tissues."

27-03-2020, 06:37 PM #62
Mike T : "I think it does have a capsule, or envelope .... "

27-03-2020, 08:48 PM #63
Oracle : "Sorry mike, I asked again: I actually misheard her. I Was not paying enough attention, Its precisely because it has a vulnerable phospholipid envelope ie encapsulated it does degrade relatively easily, and it is vulnerable to such as alcohol. [...] It’s the non encapsulated ones that are harder to destroy."
[END]

It's all very well having ready access to expertise but if you don't pay attention when listening to what the experts are saying then perhaps that ready access is less useful that one might suppose!

Second-hand understanding of something is often a simplified, if not simplistic, understanding, with little depth or breadth and of limited scope. There's nothing wrong with this per se. I would say it's important, however, for the limitations of such understanding to be recognised and acknowledged by the person putting it to use.

Quote:

---

It's all very well having ready access to expertise

---

He's a multi-millionaire, economics expert (both macro- and micro-)who photographed the dark side of the moon for NASA (all hush-hush, like). In his spare time he is friends with experts in radiocarbon dating, Boris Johnson and, apparently now, virologists. He's not averse to trotting out the odd Neo-Nazi trope, then denying it.

You'll soon see why I gave up posting on here....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

I think that is the minority reaction Mike.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...t_of_March.pdf

look at slide one on transport use. No real drop off until after lockdown and the first to taper off was the tube.
It doesn't tell the whole story of course, but schools only started closing W/C 16th March. My wife works in a factory of 250 and when she finished for holiday on 20th March the only provision was hand sanitiser stations around the shopfloor. All was as normal in the place.

---

Certainly lockdown worked:

https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/wp-con...infections.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

Certainly lockdown worked:

https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/wp-con...infections.png

---

How do they know how many infections there were at lockdown when they were only conducting about 5,000 tests a day at the time?

It’s true , I misunderstood what she said once.
I own up when I make errors.

But the point I made was valid. The topic was how long can corona last ex vivo.
The answer is not very long, as i relayed. The explanation was squiffy. Not the assertion.




Would you care to argue with what I just said Graham?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flem

Well, now. (I was going to start with 'Mmmh' but decided against it.) Forgive me for pointing out that the above doesn't mean that everything you post is factually correct though, does it?

Do you remember this (partial) exchange, on the "Todays permitted exercise!" thread?

[START]
26-03-2020, 11:30 AM #17
Oracle : "Wife says typically wont last longer than 72 hours on tissue. It’s a non encapsulated RNA virus. She should know as a biotech science director, that uses live virus. It can last longer on surfaces than tissues."

27-03-2020, 06:37 PM #62
Mike T : "I think it does have a capsule, or envelope .... "

27-03-2020, 08:48 PM #63
Oracle : "Sorry mike, I asked again: I actually misheard her. I Was not paying enough attention, Its precisely because it has a vulnerable phospholipid envelope ie encapsulated it does degrade relatively easily, and it is vulnerable to such as alcohol. [...] It’s the non encapsulated ones that are harder to destroy."
[END]

It's all very well having ready access to expertise but if you don't pay attention when listening to what the experts are saying then perhaps that ready access is less useful that one might suppose!

Second-hand understanding of something is often a simplified, if not simplistic, understanding, with little depth or breadth and of limited scope. There's nothing wrong with this per se. I would say it's important, however, for the limitations of such understanding to be recognised and acknowledged by the person putting it to use.

---

Presumably you don’t post because you have little to say.

You are also adept at twisting, or not so good at reading.

I worked on contract to ESA ( not NASA) at the time of investigating optimal entropy coding for images in limited capacity channels , inevitable in image dumping from Behind the moon.

ESA are investing in Leicester by the way - despite brexit

I also did hush hush defence stuff. Many do. It’s a shame the epidrmiologists are not nearly as good at modelling as we had to be. But then empty vessels and all that.

I Didn’t say I was friends with Boris, I said I had spoken to him for a significant time outside the Institute Of directors annual conference at the Albert hall. Waiting for the event to start.

My OH Is a virologist and molecular biologist.

Etc.

Suggest you try reading.
I don’t do neo nazi. I object to the way the EU in general and Germany in particular beggars it’s poorer members.

Like many you mischaracterise those with whom you disagree. I pointed out EU money flows provable in target 2

And on economics - if you’d listened to my COVID investment suggestions 2 months ago you’d be 25 percent up by now. Proof of the pudding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave_Mole

He's a multi-millionaire, economics expert (both macro- and micro-)who photographed the dark side of the moon for NASA (all hush-hush, like). In his spare time he is friends with experts in radiocarbon dating, Boris Johnson and, apparently now, virologists. He's not averse to trotting out the odd Neo-Nazi trope, then denying it.

You'll soon see why I gave up posting on here....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever

How do they know how many infections there were at lockdown when they were only conducting about 5,000 tests a day at the time?

---

Presumably using well known statistical methods - and the deaths peaked shortly after the lockdown, supporting their conclusion. The very sharp and dramatic response to lockdown is my point - some are saying it made no difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

Presumably using well known statistical methods - and the deaths peaked shortly after the lockdown, supporting their conclusion. The very sharp and dramatic response to lockdown is my point - some are saying it made no difference.

---

Yep, the deaths peaked shortly after lockdown, so shortly, that the virus seems to have been on the backfoot for 1-2 weeks before lockdown.

For some reason, I can't "reply with quote" to Phlegm's post #1293 but suffice it to say I stand by my point. I posted the link, I was inviting people to comment and I was hoping people with skills in the area would look and comment. I wasn't looking for or expecting people with greater linguistic skills, of which there are many, to critique my use of the English language.

Many complain about the way the forum is going, but do we really need another anonymous prick who appears to be an alter ego of an existing forumite?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

For some reason, I can't "reply with quote" to Phlegm's post #1293 but suffice it to say I stand by my point. I posted the link, I was inviting people to comment and I was hoping people with skills in the area would look and comment. I wasn't looking for or expecting people with greater linguistic skills, of which there are many, to critique my use of the English language.

Many complain about the way the forum is going, but do we really need another anonymous prick who appears to be an alter ego of an existing forumite?

---

Mmmh. For my part I am amused and intrigued by Flem's contributions - and anyone who likes Astral Weeks can't be all bad - but maybe that is merely a manifestation of pompous pedantry from one still small voice.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

Presumably using well known statistical methods - and the deaths peaked shortly after the lockdown, supporting their conclusion. The very sharp and dramatic response to lockdown is my point - some are saying it made no difference.

---

Deaths peaked on 8th April, which supports the conclusion that infections peaked about a week before lockdown.

https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/...04040588951554

I posted about the Bristol University study on 24th June, which indicated this. That makes sense, since by a week before lockdown, people were changing their behaviour. Many office workers were already working from home, football matches and other mass gatherings had stopped, shops had signs encouraging social distancing and less people were going to pubs and restaurants - they were finally ordered to shut the Friday before lockdown.

My running club has cautiously started up club nights again (I went down on Tuesday). I was looking at the website the other day and noticed a statement from 17th March, which had said club nights were stopping with immediate effect. So I think that illustrates the general mindset at the time. Lockdown merely took things a few notches further.

Looking at the graph you posted, we don't see any of that. Apparently infections rose at their sharpest in the days before lockdown before miraculously shrinking the moment lockdown is announced. So at the point of lockdown, the number of new infections infections is seemingly running at 550,000 but two or three days later this has fallen to 150,000. This is not remotely supported by the death statistics since deaths have only fallen gradually in the last few months.

If I was being cynical I might conclude that the "well known statistical methods" you think they have used might be termed "making it up". But I'm happy for you to show me a more rational scientific methodology for the graph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever

Deaths peaked on 8th April, which supports the conclusion that infections peaked about a week before lockdown.

https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/...04040588951554

I posted about the Bristol University study on 24th June, which indicated this. That makes sense, since by a week before lockdown, people were changing their behaviour. Many office workers were already working from home, football matches and other mass gatherings had stopped, shops had signs encouraging social distancing and less people were going to pubs and restaurants - they were finally ordered to shut the Friday before lockdown.

My running club has cautiously started up club nights again (I went down on Tuesday). I was looking at the website the other day and noticed a statement from 17th March, which had said club nights were stopping with immediate effect. So I think that illustrates the general mindset at the time. Lockdown merely took things a few notches further.

Looking at the graph you posted, we don't see any of that. Apparently infections rose at their sharpest in the days before lockdown before miraculously shrinking the moment lockdown is announced. So at the point of lockdown, the number of new infections infections is seemingly running at 550,000 but two or three days later this has fallen to 150,000. This is not remotely supported by the death statistics since deaths have only fallen gradually in the last few months.

If I was being cynical I might conclude that the "well known statistical methods" you think they have used might be termed "making it up". But I'm happy for you to show me a more rational scientific methodology for the graph.

---

I am very happy to accept that the official lockdown was preceded by a significant and beneficial change in behaviour by many. I cannot point to the statistical methods used to come up with relevant graph - but it cannot be that far out with respect to timing or magnitude, because if it was many an expert would have jumped on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

Presumably using well known statistical methods - and the deaths peaked shortly after the lockdown, supporting their conclusion. The very sharp and dramatic response to lockdown is my point - some are saying it made no difference.

---

But that is the problem.
Most of these conclusions are based on models that have scant connection to real world. Computer models always have been garbage in, garbage out
There was nowhere to report symptoms during the critical period so all the numbers are a guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Many complain about the way the forum is going, but do we really need another anonymous prick who appears to be an alter ego of an existing forumite?

---

Haha use of the word pr*ck alert! I used tw*t the other day and had that post altered by admin so I do hope pr*ck gets the same treatment!

As for you Witton Park, taking offence at Flem forensically dissecting some of the assumptions you jump to, grow up. It’s hard and sometimes almost impossible to read some of your viewpoints without having to make a point back.

Or do you want this part of the forum to become a talking shop for just people who agree with you 🤔

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

Haha use of the word pr*ck alert! I used tw*t the other day and had that post altered by admin so I do hope pr*ck gets the same treatment!

As for you Witton Park, taking offence at Flem forensically dissecting some of the assumptions you jump to, grow up. It’s hard and sometimes almost impossible to read some of your viewpoints without having to make a point back.

Or do you want this part of the forum to become a talking shop for just people who agree with you ��

---

The opposite is true. The forum was a breeding ground for liberal woke, pro remain, pro corbynite anti tory insults. It was part of forum Credo to denigrate Boris with Guardian fiction, despite the mandate, without ever having researched him. Witton was one of the few to react to attempt to "level the playing field" pointing out a few remainer fallacies repeated so often they had wrongly gained the status of fact. The woke of the forum collected around him like antibodies, to reject such an alien view.

The problem is of course, Flems expressions and extracts from the unused parts of the oxford dictionay, are so similar to Graham and unlike anyone else, it is hard to reach any other conclusion! "Flem" could have added a few more "yorkshire" expressions and a little less high brow, to at least maintain an illusion of difference! Hyde sounds far too like Jeckyll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

As for you Witton Park, taking offence at Flem forensically dissecting some of the assumptions you jump to, grow up. It’s hard and sometimes almost impossible to read some of your viewpoints without having to make a point back.

Or do you want this part of the forum to become a talking shop for just people who agree with you ��

---

I invited people to forensically dissect the information I had heard discussed. It's hardly the way to encourage a talking shop for like-minded people. I am aware there are people with backgrounds far better suited than I to take on board what the paper says.
But some want to dissect a choice of wording, I think it speaks volumes about them.

and it's interesting that on this forum many complain about users who over-post. "Taking over the forum" we often hear.
We don't tend to hear about those who take up multiple forum IDs. One person, several personas. Something quite freaky about those that feel the need to do that and this topic has certainly flushed out a new breed of forumite that bears a strong resemblance to some longer in the tooth members, and some not seen for a while members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

...a new breed of forumite that bears a strong resemblance to some longer in the tooth members, and some not seen for a while members.

---

But so what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle

The opposite is true. The forum was a breeding ground for liberal woke, pro remain, pro corbynite anti tory insults. It was part of forum Credo to denigrate Boris with Guardian fiction, despite the mandate, without ever having researched him. Witton was one of the few to react to attempt to "level the playing field" pointing out a few remainer fallacies repeated so often they had wrongly gained the status of fact. The woke of the forum collected around him like antibodies, to reject such an alien view.

The problem is of course, Flems expressions and extracts from the unused parts of the oxford dictionay, are so similar to Graham and unlike anyone else, it is hard to reach any other conclusion! "Flem" could have added a few more "yorkshire" expressions and a little less high brow, to at least maintain an illusion of difference! Hyde sounds far too like Jeckyll.

---

Haha pretty much everything written there is rubbish 😊

Quote:

---

Haha pretty much everything written there is rubbish

---

You caught on quick!

Quote:

---

liberal woke, pro remain, pro corbynite anti tory insults.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave_Mole

You'll soon see why I gave up posting on here....

---

So I'm not you, then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

Haha pretty much everything written there is rubbish ��

---

I think we all agree with that. We disagree on the matter of where the small kernel of truth is.

Slightly off-topic, I know, but I remember the first time I saw Bob Dylan perform, at the Bradford Town Hall in 1962. I was conversing with Mr Dylan backstage after the event, and I asked him what he thought could be done to improve safety in fell running. He looked at me for a few seconds and said, rather enigmatically I thought, "Graham, the answer is blowing in the wind, my friend' and then he hit me over the head with his guitar. By the time I'd recovered he'd gone, so I wasn't able to ask him how he knew my name. That conundrum stayed with me down the years until recently when, as I was cycling along the towpath of the Leeds-Liverpool canal, past the detritus of our once impressive engineering heritage, I realised that, at the time I'd spoken to Mr Dylan, I had still been wearing my name badge from the 3rd International Conference on Management in Fell Running held at the Ilkley School of Management where, earlier in the day, I'd made the keynote speech on the topic of the Role of Pedantry in Personnel Management. That explanation satisfied me, but only for a few hours. It was as I was getting out of the shower afterwards that I suddenly thought "But, my name's not Graham! It's Dave."

Off out for a run now. I think I'll listen to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony in the car on the way to the start today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle

It’s true , I misunderstood what she said once.

---

But how do you know it has been just the once? Does she read all your posts, just to make sure you've been paying attention?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Many complain about the way the forum is going, but do we really need another anonymous prick who appears to be an alter ego of an existing forumite?

---

Thank you for putting a smile on my face this afternoon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flem

But how do you know it has been just the once? Does she read all your posts, just to make sure you've been paying attention?

---

That assumes OH has ever had more than one useful thing to say. From which you can construe that the answer is no. Or I hope not...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave_Mole

You'll soon see why I gave up posting on here....

---

Perhaps "Flem" would like to explain the meaning of oxymoron.
Give or take the first three letters perhaps.
Its far too obscure a word for me to use.
But right up "flems" alley, or back passage anyway.!

Quote:

---

So I'm not you, then?

---

not unless pricks can reproduce by schizogenesis.