Coronavirus

[Carth]

I await the results with increasing hilarity

Wish they'd mass test all factories, then you'd see panic

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Paul

Well social media is populated by a lot of idiots, so what do you expect.

Isn't Cable Forum under the banner of Social Media? Right you are!

[jfman]

And has the same people consistently spouting misinformation, for the benefit of people unknown. Spot on, Pierre.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Can those of you with some knowledge about viruses fill in some gaps on stuff we're not told?

1/
We are told that younger people retain CV antibodies for longer than older people. The deduction made from what we're told is that older people remain susceptible to serious consequences of a second infection.

2/
Let us say that an older person in their mid 70s can shake a cold off in a couple of days. Are they likely to be typical of that age group or luckier?

3/
By corollary, is an older person who is able to shake off a cold in two days in a better position to generate CV antibodies than less cold-shake-off-able people?

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

Sorry to be very late with an answer (I have a sick kid at the moment)

What you are saying is broadly right. An older person who shakes of other viral diseases is thought to be more likely to have a better immune response.

The effectiveness of shaking off a bug is related to the persons general health and nutrition along with the health of the immune system. As we age, there is an effect called immunosenescence which is the aging of the immune system. This affects both cellular and humoral immunity. Cellular immunity is the ‘T-cell response’ broadly. This can be specific or non-specific. Non specific is where a cell says it is infected and says ‘help’ to the immune system, bringing in cells that will kill the infected cell and cause inflammation. After infection, you get specific responses where immune cells will remember the infected cells.

Humoral immunity are the antibodies. These are made by another group of immune cells called B cells.

Both T and B cells have the same precursor (haematopoietic stem cells) so as these cells age, this can impact the whole immune system. Therefore, your ‘cellular age’ is important. As the immune system ages, both the quantity and quality of the cells will drop, along with the antibodies they produce in the case of B cells. Some people age gracefully, some wither. It’s the same for the immune system.

Immunology is very complicated which is why I became a microbiologist. Much simpler....

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Sorry to be very late with an answer (I have a sick kid at the moment)

What you are saying is broadly right. An older person who shakes of other viral diseases is thought to be more likely to have a better immune response.

The effectiveness of shaking off a bug is related to the persons general health and nutrition along with the health of the immune system. As we age, there is an effect called immunosenescence which is the aging of the immune system. This affects both cellular and humoral immunity. Cellular immunity is the ‘T-cell response’ broadly. This can be specific or non-specific. Non specific is where a cell says it is infected and says ‘help’ to the immune system, bringing in cells that will kill the infected cell and cause inflammation. After infection, you get specific responses where immune cells will remember the infected cells.

Humoral immunity are the antibodies. These are made by another group of immune cells called B cells.

Both T and B cells have the same precursor (haematopoietic stem cells) so as these cells age, this can impact the whole immune system. Therefore, your ‘cellular age’ is important. As the immune system ages, both the quantity and quality of the cells will drop, along with the antibodies they produce in the case of B cells. Some people age gracefully, some wither. It’s the same for the immune system.

Immunology is very complicated which is why I became a microbiologist. Much simpler....

Brilliant, thanks. And, of course, I hope all will soon be well with your child.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Isn't Cable Forum under the banner of Social Media? Right you are!

Nope. Forums have existed far longer, before 'Social Media' was a thing.
CF is older than Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, its even a week older than MySpace.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Paul

Nope. Forums have existed far longer, before 'Social Media' was a thing.
CF is older than Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, its even a week older than MySpace.

Oh I know, I remember back to the Nthellword days. We were pioneers or for our friends from Wigan, Pie in here!

No need to panic anyway ;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54779499

[heero_yuy]

Quote from The Sun:

Terrifying predictions that 4,000 people could die of Covid every day were derided as “Noddy Land figures” last night.

The Government’s chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance shared the bleak number during Saturday night’s Downing Street briefing used to justify the second lockdown.

But experts said the modelling that provided the figure was outdated, with predicted deaths in early November more than four times higher than current fatalities.

Former Supreme Court Judge Lord Sumption said: “Some of the statistics they have produced over the last few days simply don’t bear a moment’s examination.

“The most extreme one is the suggestion that there could be up to 4,000 deaths a day.

“That is a figure which no country has ever come close to. These are absolute Noddy Land figures.”

Microbiologist Professor David Livermore added that the figures are “clearly ropey statistics” and said they “just don’t make sense”.

Another so called expert talking out of his arse and forcing a lockdown that isn't even needed.

[Carth]

The only 'expert' I've ever taken notice of, was my dear old mum.

With that look on her face and a slipper in her hand, you listened closely . . . or else

[tweetiepooh]

There is too much FUD flying around and it's making the public allow too much power to be wielded too easily by those in charge.

Covid is a threat and needs to be dealt with and the public do have their part to play which if they had done we may not have needed a second lockdown.

But very little is promoted about the risks to the healthy population. The NHS England figures for death within 28 days of positive Covid test with no (known) underlying condition is low.

Total deaths no pre-existing condition = 1,491, if below 60 it's 315.
With pre-existing condition it's 30,993, if below 60 it's 2,391.

The big jumps are in the older population above 60 (nearly there) but that group could be skewed to the upper end more than other groups.

So while we do need to take action we must be careful not to allow government to ride over our freedoms easily or set precedent to allow erosion of those freedoms for "future threats".

[Sephiroth]

The bloody supermarkets are up to their nanny state activities again.
Does anyone know what the legal or guideline basis is for only one person per household allowed into the store?

I mean what's different about the rate at which we shop apart from we wear masks now? Why do they need to do this nonsense and make us queue in the cold and wet outdoors (Waitrose Wokingham)?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The bloody supermarkets are up to their nanny state activities again.
Does anyone know what the legal or guideline basis is for only one person per household allowed into the store?

I mean what's different about the rate at which we shop apart from we wear masks now? Why do they need to do this nonsense and make us queue in the cold and wet outdoors (Waitrose Wokingham)?

They're private premises and absolutely entitled to decide who comes in.

In the case of limiting numbers of people from each household, I suspect it's to make it harder for panic buyers from the same household to go round in packs filling multiple trolleys and defeating quantity restrictions.

[heero_yuy]

Sainsbury's have the same suggestion but I don't think it's rigorously enforced.

Probably to limit the number of people in the store. More people more transmission and more difficult to keep social distancing.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

They're private premises and absolutely entitled to decide who comes in.

In the case of limiting numbers of people from each household, I suspect it's to make it harder for panic buyers from the same household to go round in packs filling multiple trolleys and defeating quantity restrictions.

Ah - I hadn't thought of that (not that the good Wokingham lot would do such a thing!).

---------- Post added at 12:09 ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Sainsbury's have the same suggestion but I don't think it's rigorously enforced.

Probably to limit the number of people in the store. More people more transmission and more difficult to keep social distancing.

Yeah - but nothing's changed there. The only thing that has changed is stay at home unless you go shopping for essentials plus a few other reasons.

Chris has provided an aspect that I hadn't thought of.

Still, Waitrose have 25% off 6 bottles and their blue branded Prosecco, with its small bubbles, is one of the best I've ever tasted.