Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[Solid at the back]

It is however frustrating if this means that antibody testing might not be the game changer we hoped it might be, given that in this small test sample, over 90% of those who have recovered from COVID-19 don't even have antibodies to show!

Be interesting to see the numbers on their further test in 3 weeks' time.

If this is right, surely that end hopes that a vaccine would actually work?

 

[Mellotron]

If this is right, surely that end hopes that a vaccine would actually work?

Why would that be?

What we appear to be seeing from this study is that some (possibly many) do not even need to produce antibodies to fight this virus off, therefore a vaccine should more than do the job...if that makes sense?

 

[beorhthelm]

If this is right, surely that end hopes that a vaccine would actually work?

no.

should be careful to put too much weight on one report of low antibody test results. need to discount poor tests first, as there is some questions over the sensitivity of them, giving false negatives, or others detecting other similar antibodies. i dont believe there is currently an approved test for this reason.

 

[sparkie]

If this is right, surely that end hopes that a vaccine would actually work?

No, because the body may develop the immunity memory cells to generate the antibody/immunity response when needed. It doesn't require actual antibodies to persist over time.

The antibody test just tests for the presence of antibodies. It doesn't test for the presence of immunity memory cells that can produce the antibodies/immunity when required.

 

[Solid at the back]

Great, thanks for clearing this up.

 

[Notters]

No, because the body may develop the immunity memory cells to generate the antibody/immunity response when needed. It doesn't require actual antibodies to persist over time.

The antibody test just tests for the presence of antibodies. It doesn't test for the presence of immunity memory cells that can produce the antibodies/immunity when required.

Also, as explained by an immunologist on the radio yesterday, even if the virus itself only produces a short-lasting immune response, that doesn't mean they can't produce a vaccine which causes a response that lasts for many years.

 

[Notters]

I've updated the graph of actual death dates below, with a rough trend line. Note that generally >90% of deaths reported on a given day occurred within the last four days so the data for more than four days ago should be fairly accurate.



Data sourced from here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

 

[Mellotron]

No, because the body may develop the immunity memory cells to generate the antibody/immunity response when needed. It doesn't require actual antibodies to persist over time.

The antibody test just tests for the presence of antibodies. It doesn't test for the presence of immunity memory cells that can produce the antibodies/immunity when required.

Apologies if I am wrong but that doesn't appear to be what the Professor is saying?

He seems to be intimating that many people who recover do not create antibodies at all, but instead fight off the infection via other means, some are suggesting T cells or "killer" cells. Again, could be reading it wrong.

I don't however think that would be bad news re: vaccine, quite the opposite, that in many cases of young, healthy people, a vaccine would almost be a sledgehammer to crack a nut, if you get me.

 

[Mellotron]

I've updated the graph of actual death dates below, with a rough trend line. Note that generally >90% of deaths reported on a given day occurred within the last four days so the data for more than four days ago should be fairly accurate.

View attachment 122469

Data sourced from here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

This is useful, gives us a better picture of where we are at in this first (and hopefully biggest) wave, thanks.

 

[RossyG]

 

[Mellotron]

View attachment 122471

Blimey.

Wouldn't exactly think the homeless would be known for having great immune systems either?! Although perhaps, living on the streets they may have already picked up many other coronaviruses, which may have helped?

Or the tests weren't reliable.

As he says, so much still to learn about this CV.

 

[sparkie]

Apologies if I am wrong but that doesn't appear to be what the Professor is saying?

He seems to be intimating that many people who recover do not create antibodies at all, but instead fight off the infection via other means, some are suggesting T cells or "killer" cells. Again, could be reading it wrong.

I don't however think that would be bad news re: vaccine, quite the opposite, that in many cases of young, healthy people, a vaccine would almost be a sledgehammer to crack a nut, if you get me.

Yes, T-cells are not antibodies, so won't be picked up by antibody tests. They are also known as T-killers, if I remember my biology A-level correctly, and are another immunity response to viruses and bacteria.

It is the B-cells which are the memory cells for antibody production.

Basically, the body has different "armies" that it uses.

 

[Mellotron]

Yes, T-cells are not antibodies, so won't be picked up by antibody tests. They are also known as T-killers, if I remember my biology A-level correctly, and are another immunity response to viruses and bacteria.

It is the B-cells which are the memory cells for antibody production.

Basically, the body has different "armies" that it uses.

Thanks for this. So, those who fight it off via other means won't be immune from reinfection? Or they will, but via presence of T-killers rather than antibodies?

(I'm wayyy out of my depth here).

 

[sparkie]

Thanks for this. So, those who fight it off via other means won't be immune from reinfection? Or they will, but via presence of T-killers rather than antibodies?

(I'm wayyy out of my depth here).

I can't remember - and I learnt this 20 years ago, and things move on - but I think if you have fought it off once, then you will do so again, unless your immune system goes wrong in the interval, or the virus changes too much.

Another thing I remember is that even if a virus mutates, then a vaccine against an older virus type may still help to some extent.

I need to read up on all this again, it's not actually difficult stuff at an overview level.

 

[The Wizard]

Spain have recorded 4000 new cases, which ponders me the question, how are this many people still being infected around 5 weeks (35 days) after they imposed very strict lockdown rules?

They think the incubation period is between 7-10 days most commonly and up to 21 days rarely, they are 2 weeks outside this window yet are still averaging 4000 new cases. Similar story in other countries as well. I would guess many of those are key workers but it still seems high considering the measures in place.

 

[Mellotron]

Spain have recorded 4000 new cases, which ponders me the question, how are this many people still being infected around 5 weeks (35 days) after they imposed very strict lockdown rules?

They think the incubation period is between 7-10 days most commonly and up to 21 days rarely, they are 2 weeks outside this window yet are still averaging 4000 new cases. Similar story in other countries as well. I would guess many of those are key workers but it still seems high considering the measures in place.

Do we know if they are doing as we are - a> increasing numbers of tests every day and b> moving increasingly to testing key workers? If so, that could explain the steady infection rate.

 

[oldboyroy]

Spain have recorded 4000 new cases, which ponders me the question, how are this many people still being infected around 5 weeks (35 days) after they imposed very strict lockdown rules?

They think the incubation period is between 7-10 days most commonly and up to 21 days rarely, they are 2 weeks outside this window yet are still averaging 4000 new cases. Similar story in other countries as well. I would guess many of those are key workers but it still seems high considering the measures in place.

I keep banging on about this myself it's the new infection rates here although staying roughly the same and admit more tests being done but still expected new infections to have dropped massively due to our lockdown. I mean massively to say below a thousand J day by now.

 

[oldboyroy]

Do figures just released in Scotland mean that people in intensive care has reduced by 7 however 12 died yesterday so does that mean in effect that there is another 5 more cases in intensive care?

 

[Mellotron]

I keep banging on about this myself it's the new infection rates here although staying roughly the same and admit more tests being done but still expected new infections to have dropped massively due to our lockdown. I mean massively to say below a thousand J day by now.

I think some underestimate quite how many key workers there are. There are millions. And a huge % of them will sadly likely be infected.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Spain have recorded 4000 new cases, which ponders me the question, how are this many people still being infected around 5 weeks (35 days) after they imposed very strict lockdown rules?

They think the incubation period is between 7-10 days most commonly and up to 21 days rarely, they are 2 weeks outside this window yet are still averaging 4000 new cases. Similar story in other countries as well. I would guess many of those are key workers but it still seems high considering the measures in place.

Very good question. Essential workers will cover some of these infections as you have already said.

My guess is that there is possibly a 42 day maximum window between person 1 being infected to person 2 being tested. So, person 1 was infected on the day before lockdown, they passed the infection to person 2 after 21 days then that person was tested 21 days later.