So, coronavirus...

[Torquemada 1420]

The professor is an oncologist. That's not a heavyweight in virology or epidemiology. Hell, that's not even someone specialising in transmissible disease. Or anything to do with outside forces damaging the body.

This was weeks ago. He was suggesting the increase in deaths of those suffering from (currently) treatable cancers, heart disease etc would far outweigh the CORONA caused deaths.

You disagree?

[Raggs]

The professor is an oncologist. That's not a heavyweight in virology or epidemiology. Hell, that's not even someone specialising in transmissible disease. Or anything to do with outside forces damaging the body.

This was weeks ago. He was suggesting the increase in deaths of those suffering from (currently) treatable cancers, heart disease etc would far outweigh the CORONA caused deaths.

You disagree?

At the moment. Yes. We've had 40k covid deaths, and 67k excess, so only 27k non covid (and non-covid is basically not confirmed, it could have been, but not reported as such).

Had we not locked down, we'd have had far more deaths all over the place.

Yes, the shutting down of many essential services will have lead to many more cancer and heart disease patients suffering and dying. But not more than would have died, had those services been continued. Almost every one of those patients would have been in high risk categories for Covid, had they continued to act as normal. Worse still, the hospitals would have been over run and then they still wouldn't have received the treatment they need.

[robmatic]

Of those 65k, how many were primarily or entirely attributable to COVID i.e. I'm interested in the distinction between accelerated deaths and causation deaths.

Accelerated deaths will result in a corresponding drop in rates down the line because those people can't die twice.

Nobody can die twice. This isn't a particularly useful distinction.

[CM11]

The indirect deaths v direct deaths is a tricky one. Essentially a trolley problem.

[JM2K6]

Pretty much every doctor I follow on Twitter thinks that "Professor" Sikora is a dangerous crank. I must say there's little evidence to the contrary. He's a contrarian who thinks the NHS is "the last bastion of communism", loathes the WHO and the UN, and is an oncology advisor to big pharma companies. He also made big claims about being professor of oncology at Imperial to the point where they got pissed off and explained he'd never held that position and sought legal advice.

Everything about him stinks.

But even if you don't care about the above, the fact that he's not a virologist should be enough.

[Torquemada 1420]

At the moment. Yes. We've had 40k covid deaths, and 67k excess, so only 27k non covid (and non-covid is basically not confirmed, it could have been, but not reported as such).

Had we not locked down, we'd have had far more deaths all over the place.

Yes, the shutting down of many essential services will have lead to many more cancer and heart disease patients suffering and dying. But not more than would have died, had those services been continued. Almost every one of those patients would have been in high risk categories for Covid, had they continued to act as normal. Worse still, the hospitals would have been over run and then they still wouldn't have received the treatment they need.

The evidence for that does not appear that clear to me. UK rates apparently amongst the worst despite (or maybe because of) the measures implemented but regardless, the death rates don't have enough statistical significant difference between different worldwide preventative implementations to suggest anything has made much impact on the stats.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53300784 is suggesting you are wrong!

My gut feeling is at outset, in the absence of any reliable data, whatever any Govt did anywhere was going to have areas of contention with the benefit of hindsight (although given the UK is an island, here seems to have been tardier than should have been the case). However, all points to the risk of death in the vast majority of cases being only to those who already have serious, underlying health symptoms. Just maybe we've reached the point where the amount of resource being expended on this should now be targeted at specific provisions for those most at risk.

[Torquemada 1420]

Pretty much every doctor I follow on Twitter thinks that "Professor" Sikora is a dangerous crank. I must say there's little evidence to the contrary. He's a contrarian who thinks the NHS is "the last bastion of communism", loathes the WHO and the UN, and is an oncology advisor to big pharma companies. He also made big claims about being professor of oncology at Imperial to the point where they got pissed off and explained he'd never held that position and sought legal advice.

Everything about him stinks.

But even if you don't care about the above, the fact that he's not a virologist should be enough.

Yeah. I know he had an acrimonious fall out with WHO.

What the hell is his analogy of the NHS and communism about? Interested in any link you have to his spurious claims re Imperial. An odd thing to do because not that many people (certainly outside the UK) would have a clue about Imperial and, anyway, that's gotta be a much smaller feather than WHO.

According to University of Buckingham, he is a prof there. And his CV remains impressive even if his political views are a bit mental.

[Biffer]

Pretty much every doctor I follow on Twitter thinks that "Professor" Sikora is a dangerous crank. I must say there's little evidence to the contrary. He's a contrarian who thinks the NHS is "the last bastion of communism", loathes the WHO and the UN, and is an oncology advisor to big pharma companies. He also made big claims about being professor of oncology at Imperial to the point where they got pissed off and explained he'd never held that position and sought legal advice.

Everything about him stinks.

But even if you don't care about the above, the fact that he's not a virologist should be enough.

Yeah. I know he had an acrimonious fall out with WHO.

What the hell is his analogy of the NHS and communism about? Interested in any link you have to his spurious claims re Imperial. An odd thing to do because not that many people (certainly outside the UK) would have a clue about Imperial and, anyway, that's gotta be a much smaller feather than WHO.

According to University of Buckingham, he is a prof there. And his CV remains impressive even if his political views are a bit mental.

You're wrong about Imperial. It's ranked in the top 10 universities in the world by both the QS rankings and the Times Higher Educational Supplement. Those are the two main global rankings.

[Bokkom]

So a huge seroprevelance study done in Spain. 60k+ participants. Very low seroprevalance, and a good bit of evidence that t-cell immunity is likely responsible for less than 10% of cases (less than 10% of those who'd tested positive for covid previously didn't show antibodies).

Ok. Cool.













But also what does that mean in laymans terms?

Herd immunity through catching the disease doesn't work.

If you've been infected, you've almost certainly developed antibodies to fight off the virus, rather than rely on a white T-Cell response to destroy infected cells. The people that were hoping that in fact 90% of us had already had it, despite actual covid testing not showing that, and then despite earlier seroprevalence studies not showing that, was based on peoples T-Cells destroying the illness (which wouldn't show on a seroprevalence test). Basically, 50%+ of us have not had it. In fact outside of highly effected areas, it's likely 5% or less.

In the end, what it means is we need either very effective treatment for this, so we can let it spread naturally, but treat everyone to keep them alive. Or we need a vaccine.

Questions:
1. Are there any tests to show the intervention of T-cells?
2. If one's T-cells respond with a 100% success rate once, does it mean you have a kind of "natural immunity" against the virus and it will "bounce" off your cells in future as well?

[JM2K6]

Pretty much every doctor I follow on Twitter thinks that "Professor" Sikora is a dangerous crank. I must say there's little evidence to the contrary. He's a contrarian who thinks the NHS is "the last bastion of communism", loathes the WHO and the UN, and is an oncology advisor to big pharma companies. He also made big claims about being professor of oncology at Imperial to the point where they got pissed off and explained he'd never held that position and sought legal advice.

Everything about him stinks.

But even if you don't care about the above, the fact that he's not a virologist should be enough.

Yeah. I know he had an acrimonious fall out with WHO.

What the hell is his analogy of the NHS and communism about? Interested in any link you have to his spurious claims re Imperial. An odd thing to do because not that many people (certainly outside the UK) would have a clue about Imperial and, anyway, that's gotta be a much smaller feather than WHO.

According to University of Buckingham, he is a prof there. And his CV remains impressive even if his political views are a bit mental.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/200 ... al-college

He's a really dubious character. And his CV is impressive if you are impressed by people who sell their souls for the cash, I guess.

His beef with the NHS? He's a privatisation fanatic, partly because he's financially motivated to be so thanks to his directorship of private medical companies, and attacked it on behalf of the Republicans in the US. On Newsnight he made that statement about communism and repeated the usual garbage about privatising it. Big promoter of "alternative medicine", as well.

He's useful to the anti-lockdown crowd for obvious reasons.

Quack, quack.

[Saint]

Anyway, vaccine update

The Oxford vaccine is in phase II out in Brazil. All data suggest it is safe (as expected - it would have been a major shock to see that it wasn't as the platform has gone through safety testing for MERS already), and it definitely produces neutralising antibodies with an indication of T-cell responses as well. Initial indicators out of Brazil are that a single shot is giving around 40% of people immunity. Testing is being done on double doses and how long immunity may last, first published data may come out in August if the evidence is clear enough.

40% means it's not a one shot solution - but it would enormously slow down infection rates, and if a country could fully vaccinate it's population would reduce r0 a LOT - so it becomes much more manageable with track and trace as well in the equation.

The first Chinese vaccine (Coronavac) is also about to enter Phase III again in Brazil - similar indicators at this stage from Phases I and II

[Raggs]

Imperial is top 10, and for science and technology, generally top 5, occasionally taking the number 1 spot. That's mostly because it doesn't do arts degrees etc.

As for 35k extra cancer deaths, how does that suggest I'm wrong?

Lockdown = 45k Covid deaths, 35k cancer deaths.
No lockdown = 250k+ covid deaths, plenty of extra cancer deaths because the hospitals still can't treat anyone with cancer due to being overwhelmed...

EDIT - 40% would definitely need two rounds of vaccination at least, but as you say, it would have a huge slowing effect by itself. Very good news. UK has a deal in place for 100 million doses for that vaccine already in place, with I think 30 million by september, which would be a huge step forwards.

[CM11]

Anyway, vaccine update

The Oxford vaccine is in phase II out in Brazil. All data suggest it is safe (as expected - it would have been a major shock to see that it wasn't as the platform has gone through safety testing for MERS already), and it definitely produces neutralising antibodies with an indication of T-cell responses as well. Initial indicators out of Brazil are that a single shot is giving around 40% of people immunity. Testing is being done on double doses and how long immunity may last, first published data may come out in August if the evidence is clear enough.

40% means it's not a one shot solution - but it would enormously slow down infection rates, and if a country could fully vaccinate it's population would reduce r0 a LOT - so it becomes much more manageable with track and trace as well in the equation.

The first Chinese vaccine (Coronavac) is also about to enter Phase III again in Brazil - similar indicators at this stage from Phases I and II

Do the people not getting immunity get a milder dose of the disease?

[Raggs]

Anyway, vaccine update

The Oxford vaccine is in phase II out in Brazil. All data suggest it is safe (as expected - it would have been a major shock to see that it wasn't as the platform has gone through safety testing for MERS already), and it definitely produces neutralising antibodies with an indication of T-cell responses as well. Initial indicators out of Brazil are that a single shot is giving around 40% of people immunity. Testing is being done on double doses and how long immunity may last, first published data may come out in August if the evidence is clear enough.

40% means it's not a one shot solution - but it would enormously slow down infection rates, and if a country could fully vaccinate it's population would reduce r0 a LOT - so it becomes much more manageable with track and trace as well in the equation.

The first Chinese vaccine (Coronavac) is also about to enter Phase III again in Brazil - similar indicators at this stage from Phases I and II

Do the people not getting immunity get a milder dose of the disease?

This is why the word immunity is wrong. The people with "immunity" would get a milder effect from the disease, those who didn't react to the vaccine would still get the full blown I presume.

[CM11]

Are screening services up and running in the UK?

The thing is, even without lockdown plenty of people were going to avoid doctors/screening etc. because of worries that they'd catch the virus in a healthcare setting. With so many healthcare workers catching it, it wasn't exactly unfounded and even if you set up a covid free space, there really wasn't a way to guarantee it'd stay that way at the height of it.

[Biffer]

Imperial is top 10, and for science and technology, generally top 5, occasionally taking the number 1 spot. That's mostly because it doesn't do arts degrees etc.

As for 35k extra cancer deaths, how does that suggest I'm wrong?

Lockdown = 45k Covid deaths, 35k cancer deaths.
No lockdown = 250k+ covid deaths, plenty of extra cancer deaths because the hospitals still can't treat anyone with cancer due to being overwhelmed...

EDIT - 40% would definitely need two rounds of vaccination at least, but as you say, it would have a huge slowing effect by itself. Very good news. UK has a deal in place for 100 million doses for that vaccine already in place, with I think 30 million by september, which would be a huge step forwards.

My rough mental calculation is if you've got 40% that would bring R0 down to about 1.8, roughly the same as seasonal flu.

[CM11]

Anyway, vaccine update

The Oxford vaccine is in phase II out in Brazil. All data suggest it is safe (as expected - it would have been a major shock to see that it wasn't as the platform has gone through safety testing for MERS already), and it definitely produces neutralising antibodies with an indication of T-cell responses as well. Initial indicators out of Brazil are that a single shot is giving around 40% of people immunity. Testing is being done on double doses and how long immunity may last, first published data may come out in August if the evidence is clear enough.

40% means it's not a one shot solution - but it would enormously slow down infection rates, and if a country could fully vaccinate it's population would reduce r0 a LOT - so it becomes much more manageable with track and trace as well in the equation.

The first Chinese vaccine (Coronavac) is also about to enter Phase III again in Brazil - similar indicators at this stage from Phases I and II

Do the people not getting immunity get a milder dose of the disease?

This is why the word immunity is wrong. The people with "immunity" would get a milder effect from the disease, those who didn't react to the vaccine would still get the full blown I presume.

Agreed but I was getting at 40% = not really getting many symptoms as with most vaccines and wondering whether the other 60% got any benefit at all? I would have thought it would be odd that some would get a decent benefit and others nothing at all.

[Raggs]

Imperial is top 10, and for science and technology, generally top 5, occasionally taking the number 1 spot. That's mostly because it doesn't do arts degrees etc.

As for 35k extra cancer deaths, how does that suggest I'm wrong?

Lockdown = 45k Covid deaths, 35k cancer deaths.
No lockdown = 250k+ covid deaths, plenty of extra cancer deaths because the hospitals still can't treat anyone with cancer due to being overwhelmed...

EDIT - 40% would definitely need two rounds of vaccination at least, but as you say, it would have a huge slowing effect by itself. Very good news. UK has a deal in place for 100 million doses for that vaccine already in place, with I think 30 million by september, which would be a huge step forwards.

My rough mental calculation is if you've got 40% that would bring R0 down to about 1.8, roughly the same as seasonal flu.

I'd guess, but if you can vaccinate the vulnerable and frontline first, you may only lower the r0 by that much, but the mortality far further. Could even lower the r0 by more by targeting frontline workers who could have been spreading it rapidly.

CM11 - My presumption is the 40% is the number who are tested after receiving the vaccine, and showing an immune response. Basically seroprevalence testing.

[CM11]

Imperial is top 10, and for science and technology, generally top 5, occasionally taking the number 1 spot. That's mostly because it doesn't do arts degrees etc.

As for 35k extra cancer deaths, how does that suggest I'm wrong?

Lockdown = 45k Covid deaths, 35k cancer deaths.
No lockdown = 250k+ covid deaths, plenty of extra cancer deaths because the hospitals still can't treat anyone with cancer due to being overwhelmed...

EDIT - 40% would definitely need two rounds of vaccination at least, but as you say, it would have a huge slowing effect by itself. Very good news. UK has a deal in place for 100 million doses for that vaccine already in place, with I think 30 million by september, which would be a huge step forwards.

My rough mental calculation is if you've got 40% that would bring R0 down to about 1.8, roughly the same as seasonal flu.

I'd guess, but if you can vaccinate the vulnerable and frontline first, you may only lower the r0 by that much, but the mortality far further. Could even lower the r0 by more by targeting frontline workers who could have been spreading it rapidly.

CM11 - My presumption is the 40% is the number who are tested after receiving the vaccine, and showing an immune response. Basically seroprevalence testing.

Ok, so 40% showing some sort of immune response, not necessarily identical and 60% none at all?

And you say this one is built on a vaccine that has has longer testing on humans so shouldn't have unknown side effects?

[Raggs]

My rough mental calculation is if you've got 40% that would bring R0 down to about 1.8, roughly the same as seasonal flu.

I'd guess, but if you can vaccinate the vulnerable and frontline first, you may only lower the r0 by that much, but the mortality far further. Could even lower the r0 by more by targeting frontline workers who could have been spreading it rapidly.

CM11 - My presumption is the 40% is the number who are tested after receiving the vaccine, and showing an immune response. Basically seroprevalence testing.

Ok, so 40% showing some sort of immune response, not necessarily identical and 60% none at all?

And you say this one is built on a vaccine that has has longer testing on humans so shouldn't have unknown side effects?

I presume so with the percentages.

It's the oxford vaccine. So based on one being made for MERS which is why it was already much further along. They're testing in Brazil now as both a larger scale and longer term, though so far it looks good. Might be more effective ones are made later, but if we can get this one going ASAP, then basically upgrade if one becomes available.

[Saint]

My understanding is that the 40% is effectively neutralised at source. They do not get the virus, or rather the immune system deals with it inside 1-2 days. For the remainder, it;s a question of whether or not the immune system reacts rapidly enough to get infected, which is why the double dose is being investigated as a way of improving the responsiveness.

A lot of this comes down to something I touched on back on PR - the understanding of how T-Cells respond and react is proving to be at least as important as antibodies, and it;s been shown that your body can fight off Coronavirus through T-cells alone - effectively you get some sort of immunity without any antibodies at all.

Either way, getting a vaccine that really does prevent 40% of all infections right from the start will do a LOT to prevent the spread of the virus, and obviously massively reduces lethality

[Saint]

I'd guess, but if you can vaccinate the vulnerable and frontline first, you may only lower the r0 by that much, but the mortality far further. Could even lower the r0 by more by targeting frontline workers who could have been spreading it rapidly.

CM11 - My presumption is the 40% is the number who are tested after receiving the vaccine, and showing an immune response. Basically seroprevalence testing.

Ok, so 40% showing some sort of immune response, not necessarily identical and 60% none at all?

And you say this one is built on a vaccine that has has longer testing on humans so shouldn't have unknown side effects?

I presume so with the percentages.

It's the oxford vaccine. So based on one being made for MERS which is why it was already much further along. They're testing in Brazil now as both a larger scale and longer term, though so far it looks good. Might be more effective ones are made later, but if we can get this one going ASAP, then basically upgrade if one becomes available.

Yeah - the "platform" has been proven to work and has years of testing behind it on safety grounds (MERS is lethal, but there's not much spread outside the ME, so there's not much money or urgency in developing the vaccine). Basically it's an inert virus, and the're grafting the Coronavirus shell over the top - they picked the shell because it has the very distinctive protein "spikes"

[Raggs]

My understanding is that the 40% is effectively neutralised at source. They do not get the virus, or rather the immune system deals with it inside 1-2 days. For the remainder, it;s a question of whether or not the immune system reacts rapidly enough to get infected, which is why the double dose is being investigated as a way of improving the responsiveness.

A lot of this comes down to something I touched on back on PR - the understanding of how T-Cells respond and react is proving to be at least as important as antibodies, and it;s been shown that your body can fight off Coronavirus through T-cells alone - effectively you get some sort of immunity without any antibodies at all.

Either way, getting a vaccine that really does prevent 40% of all infections right from the start will do a LOT to prevent the spread of the virus, and obviously massively reduces lethality

Don't know if you saw, but the Spanish study suggests that less than 10% of cases rely on t-cell response alone, so any vaccine will need to be showing good antibody response to be considered effective I guess.

[Biffer]

My understanding is that the 40% is effectively neutralised at source. They do not get the virus, or rather the immune system deals with it inside 1-2 days. For the remainder, it;s a question of whether or not the immune system reacts rapidly enough to get infected, which is why the double dose is being investigated as a way of improving the responsiveness.

A lot of this comes down to something I touched on back on PR - the understanding of how T-Cells respond and react is proving to be at least as important as antibodies, and it;s been shown that your body can fight off Coronavirus through T-cells alone - effectively you get some sort of immunity without any antibodies at all.

Either way, getting a vaccine that really does prevent 40% of all infections right from the start will do a LOT to prevent the spread of the virus, and obviously massively reduces lethality

Don't know if you saw, but the Spanish study suggests that less than 10% of cases rely on t-cell response alone, so any vaccine will need to be showing good antibody response to be considered effective I guess.

That Spanish study is interesting, it seems to be at odds with the studies I saw from USA, Singapore and France that suggested 30-60% T cell response (unless I'm being really dumb, which is entirely possible). Post is at the top of page seven of this thread.

[iarmhí]

So Bolsonaro has contracted Covid 19.

Karma could be very bad to him

[iarmhí]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -president

The Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro, has announced live on television he has tested positive for coronavirus.

US is 'still knee deep in first wave' of coronavirus, warns Fauci – live
Read more
“It came back positive,” a mask-wearing Bolsonaro told a hand-picked group of reporters on Tuesday lunchtime outside his official residence.

“There’s no reason for fear. That’s life,” the president added. “Life goes on. I thank God for my life and the role I’ve been given to decide the future of this great nation that is called Brazil.”

Bolsonaro, 65, has repeatedly trivialized the pandemic and flouted social distancing, even as Brazil became the second-worst hit country after the United States, with more than 65,000 deaths and 1.6 million confirmed cases.

In March, as Covid-19 claimed its first victims in Brazil, the far-right populist used an address to the nation to brag that, if infected, he would quickly shake off the illness thanks to his “athlete’s background”.

Since then, Bolsonaro has continued to attend social events and political rallies, often wearing masks incorrectly, or not wearing them at all.


Bolsonaro says given his 'athletic history' Covid-19 'would not necessarily concern me' – video
After announcing his positive result on Tuesday, Bolsonaro stepped back from the reporters he was addressing, removed his mask and, grinning, said: “Just look at my face. I’m well, fine, thank God … Thanks to all those who have been praying for me … and to those who criticise me, no problem, carry on criticising as much as you like.”

Advertisement
Bolsonaro’s diagnosis comes just three days after he had lunch at the home of the US ambassador to Brazil, Todd Chapman, in the capital, Brasília.

Also present at that Independence Day celebration were several top cabinet members, including foreign minister Ernesto Araújo, defence minister Fernando Azevedo, and the president’s son, Eduardo, a politician who is Steve Bannon’s representative in South America. The men were photographed without face masks.

Reports of Bolsonaro’s possible infection first emerged on Monday evening, with local news outlets reporting that he had been tested after developing coronavirus symptoms, including a 38C temperature and a persistent cough.

An MRI of Bolsonaro’s lungs was also taken, with the president telling supporters it had shown them to be “clear”.

The newspaper O Globo said it understood Brazil’s president had started complaining of tiredness on Saturday night, after his lunch with the US ambassador, and continued feeling unwell on Sunday.

8:37
Bolsonaro won't help with coronavirus, so Brazil's favelas are helping themselves - video
Bolsonaro has repeatedly downplayed the risks of Covid-19 and urged Brazil to get back to work to avoid a devastating economic crash but he is now the second member of his family suffering its effects.

The 80-year-old grandmother of Brazil’s first lady, Michelle Bolsonaro, was reportedly intubated on Sunday, after being admitted to hospital with coronavirus last Wednesday.

Advertisement

According to the G1 news website, Maria Aparecida Firmo Ferreira, who is reportedly estranged from the presidential clan, was found collapsed in the street by passersby and taken to a hospital in Ceilândia, a satellite city outside Brasília.

Bolsonaro’s response to the coronavirus has sparked a domestic and international outcry, with many directly blaming him for the high death toll. Brazil currently lacks a permanent health minister after two were forced from their jobs in less than a month after clashing with Bolsonaro over the pandemic.


Brazil condemned to historic tragedy by Bolsonaro's virus response – top doctor
Read more
On Monday night Bolsonaro’s son, Carlos, attacked critics of his father who he claimed were willing the president’s death.

“The immense number of people rooting for the death of the head of the executive right now should trigger an immediate show of solidarity from other [political] leaders,” Carlos Bolsonaro tweeted.

4:15
Why has Brazil been so badly hit by coronavirus? – video explainer
Another prominent politician, the mayor of the biggest city in the Amazon, Manaus, was flown to hospital in São Paulo on Monday after also falling ill with coronavirus last week.

“The doctors are optimistic and so are we,” Arthur Virgílio, who had reportedly been receiving non-invasive respiratory support, said in a WhatsApp message to the Guardian.

Since you're here ...
… joining us from Ireland, we have a small favour to ask. You've read 44 articles in the last nine months. And you’re not alone; millions are flocking to the Guardian for quality news every day. We believe everyone deserves access to factual information, and analysis that has authority and integrity. That’s why, unlike many others, we made a choice: to keep Guardian reporting open for all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay.

As an open, independent news organisation we investigate, interrogate and expose the actions of those in power, without fear. With no shareholders or billionaire owner, our journalism is free from political and commercial bias – this makes us different. We can give a voice to the oppressed and neglected, and stand in solidarity with those who are calling for a fairer future. With your help we can make a difference.

We’re determined to provide journalism that helps each of us better understand the world, and take actions that challenge, unite, and inspire change – in times of crisis and beyond. Our work would not be possible without our readers, who now support our work from 180 countries around the world.

But news organisations are facing an existential threat. With advertising revenues plummeting, the Guardian risks losing a major source of its funding. More than ever before, we’re reliant on financial support from readers to fill the gap. Your support keeps us independent, open, and means we can maintain our high quality reporting – investigating, disentangling and interrogating.

[Raggs]

That Spanish study is interesting, it seems to be at odds with the studies I saw from USA, Singapore and France that suggested 30-60% T cell response (unless I'm being really dumb, which is entirely possible). Post is at the top of page seven of this thread.

So first one I look at says t-cell and antibodies. So not just t-cell.

Second one says T-cells are definitely important, but from a brief scan, doesn't mention if antibodies were there as well or not.

Last one seems to just focus on t-cells again.

So yes, T-cells are important to the response, but the idea that some people had was that in actual fact 60%+ of the population had already been infected, been asymptomatic, been missed out on in covid tests if they had got one, and then also tested negative for seroprevalence, all down to the fact that it had been solely t-cell response.

Spanish study shows that some people do show evidence of defeating the virus solely through a t-cell response, and have not developed antibodies, but that 90%+ have developed antibodies. Basically this means there's not some secret 50% of the population who are immune and the government are just over reacting etc.

[salanya]

So Bolzanaro has contracted Covid 19.

Karma could be very bad to him

Was just going to post this: not that there is joy in another's ill health, but the first word that sprang to mind was Schadenfreude.

But he's said that a little cold won't stop him, and how could Karma disagree with that?

[iarmhí]

So Bolzanaro has contracted Covid 19.

Karma could be very bad to him

Was just going to post this: not that there is joy in another's ill health, but the first word that sprang to mind was Schadenfreude.

But he's said that a little cold won't stop him, and how could Karma disagree with that?

Boris started off with a little cold and ended up in the ICU.

Give this a week. He's 65 as well, so he could get quite ill.

[Biffer]

That Spanish study is interesting, it seems to be at odds with the studies I saw from USA, Singapore and France that suggested 30-60% T cell response (unless I'm being really dumb, which is entirely possible). Post is at the top of page seven of this thread.

So first one I look at says t-cell and antibodies. So not just t-cell.

Second one says T-cells are definitely important, but from a brief scan, doesn't mention if antibodies were there as well or not.

Last one seems to just focus on t-cells again.

So yes, T-cells are important to the response, but the idea that some people had was that in actual fact 60%+ of the population had already been infected, been asymptomatic, been missed out on in covid tests if they had got one, and then also tested negative for seroprevalence, all down to the fact that it had been solely t-cell response.

Spanish study shows that some people do show evidence of defeating the virus solely through a t-cell response, and have not developed antibodies, but that 90%+ have developed antibodies. Basically this means there's not some secret 50% of the population who are immune and the government are just over reacting etc.

My limited understanding was that the three groups were suggesting that there was some kind of t cell response in some proportion of people that may have come from exposure to one of the other endemic human coronaviruses, so not immunity, but a better T cell response. Was really pushing my understanding reading those papers though.

[Hal Jordan]

So Bolzanaro has contracted Covid 19.

Karma could be very bad to him

Was just going to post this: not that there is joy in another's ill health, but the first word that sprang to mind was Schadenfreude.

But he's said that a little cold won't stop him, and how could Karma disagree with that?

Boris started off with a little cold and ended up in the ICU.

Give this a week. He's 65 as well, so he could get quite ill.

Problem is, if he doesn't and recovers without too much fuss, he'll double down on the crackpottery.

Edit: Also, getting a serious dose seems to have done nothing whatsoever to stop Johnson and his minders acting the cunt non-stop over the whole affair. If anything, it seems to have encouraged them.

[Raggs]

My limited understanding was that the three groups were suggesting that there was some kind of t cell response in some proportion of people that may have come from exposure to one of the other endemic human coronaviruses, so not immunity, but a better T cell response. Was really pushing my understanding reading those papers though.

Only skimmed, but I think at least one of them was suggesting a better response in some individuals, thought to be due to exposure to viruses with similar structures.

[Un Pilier]

Thanks for the informative discussion guys. Fingers crossed!

[Ymx]

Here we go

https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeop ... 52020.xlsx

Click on the weekly figures tab.

Compare the first 2 data rows. Top 1 being 2020 and second one being historical avg for the same week.

You’ll see from about 5 June, it’s back to normal in the UK

Sort of misses the point really? There have been over 65,000 excess deaths and this was greatly limited by the whole nation going into lockdown and implementing the most stringent public health response ever. The seeding of care homes with infected patients who were delayed discharges in hospitals, then to not provide the care sector with the likes of PPE etc and then not to provide them with access to ICU care probably accounts for a huge % of the deaths in the over 65s. Many other european countries managed to avoid the huge death rate in the elderly. Also there is strong emerging evidence of a whole range of other health issues i.e. vascular, arising in younger folk who contracted Covid19 and they will take many months/years to recover and will be an increased burden on the NHS. I myself was diagnosed with a sub massive pulmonary embolism and was rushed to A&E in hospital and was admitted for 3 days and am on blood thinner injections for another 3 months until next check up. No other reason for having a PE, nothing and docs reckon it was caused by covid19 and its effect on the blood. A&E Doc said he had seen 2 or 3 times then number of clots and strokes coming into A&E during the Covid19 pandemic.

Can those morons who think this is 'just like the flu' and the death rates are comparable with the bad flu seasons please wind in their uneducated necks in please and go and educate themselves about this virus.

Wasn’t disputing that.

There was at a point pretty much double the death rate. And the UK CV deaths is definitely under reported. It’s very clear to see. So I think 65k is probably more likely a figure.

Though my point is that now, the death rate is back to norm. So even though there are 100+ deaths a day. This is a normal amount in standard terms for the UK. So I wouldn’t say people are desensitised, it’s just that it’s no longer statistically influential. That may change of course. But it’s not at this point, which is specifically what we were discussing.

It was response to this assertion

Without going into the in's and out's of comparisons across the 4 UK nations it really is sad how we have become immune to the number of excess or Covid related deaths across the UK. We now 'celebrate' when the deaths fall below an average of 100 per day as they did last week. It almost seems this has become an acceptable price to pay as long as we can open the pubs and go to Ikea.Its even difficult now to find any info on the numbers of cases and deaths , doesn't even appear on front page of BBC website

[TB63]

[Raggs]

Why do you think Covid is under reported? Anyone with a test positive is included, anyone who died outside of a hospital that is suspected to potentially have been covid, is included. That probably means numerous non-covid pneumonia cases have been included in as covid.

[fishfoodie]

Is that toilet duck, or floor polish he's drinking ?

I've heard the floor polish has some nasty side effects.

[Ovals]

Why do you think Covid is under reported? Anyone with a test positive is included, anyone who died outside of a hospital that is suspected to potentially have been covid, is included. That probably means numerous non-covid pneumonia cases have been included in as covid.

In the UK only 'confirmed' covid cases are reported in the headline figure - suspected cases are not included. So, probably missing a decent % ofcovid related deaths.

[Raggs]

Why do you think Covid is under reported? Anyone with a test positive is included, anyone who died outside of a hospital that is suspected to potentially have been covid, is included. That probably means numerous non-covid pneumonia cases have been included in as covid.

In the UK only 'confirmed' covid cases are reported in the headline figure - suspected cases are not included. So, probably missing a decent % ofcovid related deaths.

Fairly sure hospital cases are confirmed, but All Other Cases can be when the doctor only suspects covid. Care homes and the like, which are included in the headline figure.

[Saint]

I "think" the way reporting works in the UK is that the daily reported figure is where COVID is confirmed - either pre or post mortem. So lots of cases get added, which js part of the reason why the daily report includes deaths from 3-4 weeks ago.

ONS data is excess eeaths I.e. deaths over and above the long term average for this time of year. At the same time, the ONS is also recording other measures

As a contrast, Spanish reports are deaths within the last 24 hours confirmed as COVID. So no "catchup" reporting from them.

There's a massive lack of clarity from all countries in the world as to what's going on. The US figures don't just vary state by state, they vary county by county (and for UK readers, a US county is a much smaller area/population than you would think)