Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[Birdie Boy]

I have just received my anti body test result, unfortunately it was negative, so the flu that I had in February was just that.

With regard the number of people being tested, I spoke to a doctor in the hospital that I was in. All staff there are being tested every 4 days. This must affect the numbers that they were dishing out if the same people are being tested over and over again. Makes the stat meaningless now.

 

[oldboyroy]

I have just received my anti body test result, unfortunately it was negative, so the flu that I had in February was just that.

With regard the number of people being tested, I spoke to a doctor in the hospital that I was in. All staff there are being tested every 4 days. This must affect the numbers that they were dishing out if the same people are being tested over and over again. Makes the stat meaningless now.

I presume that's just staff working on covid wards not all NHS workers? Otherwise that would mean hundreds of thousands tests every week in the testing figures solely in hospitals. Not that that's a good thing but it would mean not so many being done with the general population.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

I presume that's just staff working on covid wards not all NHS workers? Otherwise that would mean hundreds of thousands tests every week in the testing figures solely in hospitals. Not that that's a good thing but it would mean not so many being done with the general population.

Misses has to wait until end of July for her staff test at hospital

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

 

[Birdie Boy]

This was a private clinic and all staff are tested that enter the building. I have no idea how many work there but there must be a fair few private clinics around the country doing the same.
If all NHS staff are not now being tested on at least a weekly basis, then surely they should be. I'm not sure why you would only test covid ward nurses as surely most patients in hospital are vulnerable and being in the same building there is a risk of contamination and passing it on.

BTW, the test result for if I have covid now took 30 minutes. The result for the anti body test took 24 hours.

 

[oldboyroy]

This was a private clinic and all staff are tested that enter the building. I have no idea how many work there but there must be a fair few private clinics around the country doing the same.
If all NHS staff are not now being tested on at least a weekly basis, then surely they should be. I'm not sure why you would only test covid ward nurses as surely most patients in hospital are vulnerable and being in the same building there is a risk of contamination and passing it on.

BTW, the test result for if I have covid now took 30 minutes. The result for the anti body test took 24 hours.

My point above then would suggest that the vast majority of testing figures are within the NHS the. This obviously a priority as with care homes which must account for what 90% of daily figures?. As above poster said his missus has to wait till July which suggests that it's not as easy to get a test as they are telling us.

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

I have just received my anti body test result, unfortunately it was negative, so the flu that I had in February was just that.

With regard the number of people being tested, I spoke to a doctor in the hospital that I was in. All staff there are being tested every 4 days. This must affect the numbers that they were dishing out if the same people are being tested over and over again. Makes the stat meaningless now.

Negative antibody test may not be conclusive. Possible to have a false negative response, and this is a new thing and no one know how the antibodies develop over time. So you could still have had it.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I think a lot of offices will be announcing something similar in the coming weeks. My office has given people the choice - stay WFH if you want to or come in when (if) the office is open again.

I was talking to some friends about it the other day. We're all in tech, can work from home comfortably and general consensus is between us is that because we can work from home we should work from home, a civic duty kind of thing. Fewer people out and about likely means higher chance of there not being a second wave.

I'm not working yesterday or today, but I've logged on to keep on top of emails etc. Our CEO last night sent out an update and 40+ Q&A on WFH and the future - we've already decided as a company this is what the future will be for us it seems. It's just a question of consultation and how it all evolves. They envisage the office will just be a hub for meetings, training, social interaction, face to face with clients etc. We've got 9 offices and we're already saying that will get reduced. Interestingly we seem to be talking a good game as a company about letting out office space that won't be used in the future - they fully expect demand will still be there. The WFH as per government advice as a civic duty thing like you say was mentioned too as was carbon footprint reduction with less commutes taken place, among other things.

The Times They Are a-Changin'!

 

[East Staffs Gull]

What is the basis for all the latest talk about a second wave across Europe?

 

[sparkie]

What is the basis for all the latest talk about a second wave across Europe?

I think the danger of a 2nd wave is now next winter, when everyone is huddled indoors next to the superspreaders.

 

[beorhthelm]

What is the basis for all the latest talk about a second wave across Europe?

because of models. no one really knows though.

 

[Is it PotG?]

because of models. no one really knows though.

Not guilty

 

[CheeseRolls]

Negative antibody test may not be conclusive. Possible to have a false negative response, and this is a new thing and no one know how the antibodies develop over time. So you could still have had it.

I am not an expert, but my understandiing was that a false negative was most likely to be associated with an infection in the last 2 weeks and therefore someone checking if they were infected in February can pretty much rely on the results. Happy to be corrected on this.

 

[Mellotron]

I am not an expert, but my understandiing was that a false negative was most likely to be associated with an infection in the last 2 weeks and therefore someone checking if they were infected in February can pretty much rely on the results. Happy to be corrected on this.

There is emerging science - posited around 3 months ago now but growing stronger and backed by further reports as time goes on - that plenty of people who contract COVID-19 may either A> Have it so mildly their body does not produce any antibodies, or B> Their body fights off the infection via T cells, aka "killer" cells - or more likely a combination of A & B. The science that 70-80% are asymptomatic (according to Italy, China, Spain, the WHO and now (finally!) UK just yesterday) would also potentially add weight to A.

Asymptomatic cases also seem to increase in prevalence as an infection moves further through it's curve in a population, which would make sense if you subscribed to the theory that weaker strains are more likely to survive for longer, due to not causing as noticeable symptoms, or the more vulnerable likely to contract the virus more quickly/easily, etc.

Long story short - Antibody tests are looking increasingly unlikely to be a very useful gauge as to how many of us have had the infection.

It's both good and bad news, when you unpick the ramifications.

 

[Swansman]

What is the basis for all the latest talk about a second wave across Europe?

What do you mean by "latest talk"?

Since the beginning of this pandemic a lot of scientists etc predicted that the virus would be on a "break" for summer because of various reasons (like viruses generally, and perhaps especially those developing in bat caves for hundreds of years, not thriving in sunlight).

They seem to be right so far and I guess there is a probable chance that they are right about the virus returning with full strength in the fall/winter.

 

[CheeseRolls]

There is emerging science - posited around 3 months ago now but growing stronger and backed by further reports as time goes on - that plenty of people who contract COVID-19 may either A> Have it so mildly their body does not produce any antibodies, or B> Their body fights off the infection via T cells, aka "killer" cells - or more likely a combination of A & B. The science that 70-80% are asymptomatic (according to Italy, China, Spain, the WHO and now (finally!) UK just yesterday) would also potentially add weight to A.

Asymptomatic cases also seem to increase in prevalence as an infection moves further through it's curve in a population, which would make sense if you subscribed to the theory that weaker strains are more likely to survive for longer, due to not causing as noticeable symptoms, or the more vulnerable likely to contract the virus more quickly/easily, etc.

Long story short - Antibody tests are looking increasingly unlikely to be a very useful gauge as to how many of us have had the infection.

It's both good and bad news, when you unpick the ramifications.

I will have to stick this one on my pile with the one about people getting more ill, if they are exposed to a large dose. You can follow the logic and nod along, but when you turn it around it no longer makes any sense, not to me anyway. If a tree falls in a deserted woods does it make any noise? In your scenario I would be more likely to question if you were actually infected in the first place, rather than the efficacy of the test.

For the record I got a negative anti-body test result. This was disappointing as I was in hospital in March with a double massive pulmonary embollism and I would love to have been able to pin this on Covid. As it stands I could still get Covid and a reoccurence of the pulmonary embollism. The only obvious risk factors I have for this are having had a pulmonary embollism (starts to sound like Fight Club at this point) and long distance flights, which I am ruling out for the foreseeable future. I am fully recovered and would fancy my chances with Covid, but don't really need to get ill again.

 

[East Staffs Gull]

What do you mean by "latest talk"?

Since the beginning of this pandemic a lot of scientists etc predicted that the virus would be on a "break" for summer because of various reasons (like viruses generally, and perhaps especially those developing in bat caves for hundreds of years, not thriving in sunlight).

They seem to be right so far and I guess there is a probable chance that they are right about the virus returning with full strength in the fall/winter.

There has been much written in the UK press this week, and on social media, about an increase in the risk of a second wave. It certainly spooked global stock markets yesterday. Perhaps such talk was inevitable in light of the reduction in lockdown restrictions, but I just wondered if I had missed some particular evidence of second waves occurring.

 

[loz]

What do you mean by "latest talk"?

Since the beginning of this pandemic a lot of scientists etc predicted that the virus would be on a "break" for summer because of various reasons (like viruses generally, and perhaps especially those developing in bat caves for hundreds of years, not thriving in sunlight).

They seem to be right so far and I guess there is a probable chance that they are right about the virus returning with full strength in the fall/winter.

That doesn't really stand up if you look at the cases in Brazil and south America as its pretty hot there.

 

[Swansman]

That doesn't really stand up if you look at the cases in Brazil and south America as its pretty hot there.

I know, there are several issues about that theory... at the same time, viruses causing common colds and influenzas are considered highly seasonal here while being non-seasonal (as I've understood it) in the tropics... not sure anyone knows why

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

There has been much written in the UK press this week, and on social media, about an increase in the risk of a second wave. It certainly spooked global stock markets yesterday. Perhaps such talk was inevitable in light of the reduction in lockdown restrictions, but I just wondered if I had missed some particular evidence of second waves occurring.

I think the cause of the fall in stock prices was largely due to infections rising rapidly in American States, something that has not occurred yet and probably won't, in Europe.

 

[CheeseRolls]

There has been much written in the UK press this week, and on social media, about an increase in the risk of a second wave. It certainly spooked global stock markets yesterday. Perhaps such talk was inevitable in light of the reduction in lockdown restrictions, but I just wondered if I had missed some particular evidence of second waves occurring.

Anyone who can remember back to the days when we could go to football or the pub, will remember those folks who weren't too fussy about washing their hands. How long before they stop worrying entirely about Coronavirus? At the moment people will patiently wait outside shops for the one in one out rule to make it their turn. How many will be so compliant when it is freezing and pissing down? People are prepared to socialise in the garden right now, do you think they might just decide it isn't worth getting cold for? How long are people prepared to wait for things to get back to normal?

We ARE going to create better conditions for the virus to spread by being closer to more people and indoors. It only matters if infections start popping up all over the place and we face another choice around shut down, or it is you who gets infected.
You have to hope and trust we will be better prepared come the winter. That track, trace and isolate works, that the Health Service can cope and improve treatment and that we can protect the vulnerable. All of which could make it entirely manageable. I have no doubt there will be a second wave, I am just not sure how big a deal it will be.