Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.blood.co.uk/news-and-cam...id-19-updates/ https://my.blood.co.uk/KnowledgeBase...us%20infection

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

A good list and I believe people have given credit to the Government for those areas it has performed well in.

To this I would add:

Credit:
- Slogan: Stay home -protect the NHS - save lives was good
- Other business support eg rates relief, loans, deferral of VAT payments
- Regular communication
- Funding of public transport (buses, trams, trains) to compensate for loss of fare income

Debit:
- Procurement of ventilators with inexperienced providers outside he sector
- Cummingsgate which gave some people the excuse to reduce their adherence to the rules
- Turkish PPE fiasco, a propaganda exercise that failed to deliver
- Fudging the testing stats
- Requiring in-person votes in House of Commons

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yep, can add those

Lets add 'Stay Alert, Control the virus....' to the debit column as it caused confusion

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I should imagine it's the time between taking the blood, testing it, and releasing it for use, that kills off the virus. It needs suitable tissue to infect, to prolong it's life beyond a few days.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, it's exactly what it says - there is no evidence of coronavirus transmission through blood. Can we say categorically that there is minimal risk? No, not without a controlled study which is going to be difficult (who is up for a blood donation from a COVID 19 positive patient?) We have to wait for evidence to accumulate before we can anything.

I have done a quick search myself for evidence and there are a couple of nice papers;

Coronavirus Disease 2019: Coronaviruses and Blood Safety -this discusses what is seen in general related to coronaviruses including SARS and MERS
COVID-19 transmission and blood transfusion: A case report - a report where a severely immunocompromised patient was given platelets from a donor who was subsequently diagnosed with COVID 19

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yep, they could say "We have tested extensively and no evidence has been found". There is no evidence doesn't imply they even looked.

Re: Coronavirus
 

In countries that actually do test, trace, isolate would there not be a chance of them identifying this as a potential source?

Re: Coronavirus
 

You might like to check out the first link I posted (this one) It's a bit dated, being published in February but was indicative of the state of knowledge at that time - viral RNA is seen in blood for coronavirus infections but there is no evidence of transmission through blood for SARS and MERS. So RNA yes, virus no in blood.

The second paper described a 'worst case' where the worst possible type of patient was given platelets from an infected donor and nothing happened. However, a sample size of one does not make evidence.

Evidence will come from track and trace - where did that patient get infected? If all human sources are excluded except the fact that the patient received blood or blood products, there's the evidence.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeah, scientific speak isn't always clear. 'No evidence' doesn't necessarily mean 'we don't know' it usually means 'we haven't seen'.

When you see 'opportunity for further study' that really means 'we don't know' or, at best, 'god knows what those results mean' :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

In fact this is exactly what China told the WHO in January. "There is no evidence the coronovirus has human to human transmission".

Now it is entirely possible there could be a disease that can pass from human to human but does so so rarely that it goes unnoticed by testing. But we can all see that CoVid passes easily, so either they never actually looked or they just lied.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is also a opposite need amongst some to apologise for the Government at all and every opportunity. No decision even one clearly resulting in the deaths of thousands should be questioned at a point when further decisions made by the same people and the same process could lead to even more deaths. A need I am sure has more to do with a political alignment to current Government than a need to establish an objective understanding of the facts.

'Wait until all the decisions, good and bad, have been made and only then ask if they were the right decisions at the time" - better still, question the decisions as they are being made and make sure that you have the best people in charge of the decision making process when the next big decision needs to be made.