Re: Coronavirus
 

It does take all sorts to make this forum.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

If there was cause for optimism I’d share it. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Given the latest numbers and one country now offically in its second lockdown you might well be right.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You really need to read things before making statements on evidence that doesn’t fit your narrative.

T-cell immunity is a well researched and published scientific fact, and although more research needs to be done on the levels of immunity to COVID 19, as it is new, the has been lots of research done with other novel Corona-viruses such as SARS and MERS

In relation to COVID article states

doesn’t read as idle speculation to me.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

You were sent the press item. I incorrectly stated that it was a scientific calculation, but actually it was a mathematical calculation.

I guess it's only 'evidence' if it says what you want it to say.

Re: Coronavirus
 

On social media I tend not to read the comments. Here I have to and it's remarkably similar to social media..;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

It is not 'wild speculation'. What is wild speculation is believing that you can lock everyone down forever.

If you really believe in this nonsense view, jfman, it is pointless continuing this debate with you.

---------- Post added at 09:06 ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 ----------

I read that an alternative opinion was expressed, not that he was discredited. The fact is that despite coming from 'experts' it is all speculation at this point. It's a new virus, so what else can it be?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeah, this harks back to a paper I mentioned a while back where researchers in Singapore looked at T-cell responses to people who had COVID, has SARS 17 years ago or had neither. All COVID exposed patients had responses which isn't surprising. However, all SARS exposed patients showed some level of responses.

Most interestingly is that 19 out of 37 unexposed individuals also showed a response.

The only caveats are that the sample sizes are small and geographically localised in Singapore. Also, there is no further study of T-cell responses and clinical outcomes but all in all, things look hopeful...

EDIT - here's the paper for lovers of immunology and enjoy flow cytometry... - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z

Re: Coronavirus
 

From what I read these are cases where an infection did take hold and they had symptoms. However, the symptoms where reportedly a lot milder and the infection dealt with faster, i.e although they were reinfected the immune system still managed to deal with it quicker.

I don't fully understand it but I think the immune system can do two things: stop an infection before it even takes, fight it after it does.

The other thing though is sometimes having had an infection or even having had a vaccine you can randomly simply not develop antibodies against it. It's not common but it does happen.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Amazing when some say they have no interest in social media.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s speculation to assume that we are far down the road to “herd immunity” on the basis of this, in particular why the UK would benefit from it but not however Spain, Italy, France or other countries embarking on their second wave.

Wishful thinking in my book.

---------- Post added at 09:17 ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 ----------

It’s wild speculation. And nobody, anywhere, has suggested locking everyone down forever. Misrepresenting my posts is second only to your skill in not evidencing your own.

I do agree however that there’s little value in continuing a debate with you on the topic if you persist in following wishful thinking above science. The virus doesn’t care for your politics, your stiff upper lip or English exceptionalism. We’re playing by the same rules as everyone else - all that’s happening is some are skewing the narrative, undermining science, people are less adherent to rules and this situation goes on for longer - hitting health and the economy. I don’t mind one of those being hit because it’s in dire need of rebalancing anyway, and the virus presents a once in as generation opportunity - but I do care about the health angle.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are speculating yourself, and you are also, as ever, stretching what other people say to suit your strange views of what is happening.

Let's get one thing clear. I am certainly not saying there won't be a second wave. I have merely said that if it is true that if the late lockdown resulted in our reaching the same peak of the virus that we would have reached anyway, we may avoid a second wave anywhere near as extreme as the first one. That makes sense.

However, equally, it may not be so, and in fact although there was no lockdown with the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, there was still a devastating second wave.

I have been consistent in saying that this virus is going nowhere, and if we have not yet reached herd immunity, it will be back, lockdowns or no lockdowns.

Your solution is to lock us all up and hide ourselves away. For years! What kind of nonsense is that? If you want to lock yourself up, be my guest!

[EDIT]
Oh, so now you are not saying that we should lock down until a vaccine is found! I'm glad we've sorted that out.

So, what is your solution to this problem, jfman? If you are not going for the herd immunity solution and you are not going for a long lockdown, then what are you saying?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not from you...

Peer-reviewed papers are "evidence", which this is not - it’s one Prof of Stats views, not backed up by any other papers/research.

From the Bristol Uni web-page

I guess it's 'evidence' if it says what you want it to say...

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you are stretching it, Hugh. Ok, it's a theory, but it is still evidence to support what I was saying.

True, the two articles that were produced did not come from me because someone beat me to it, but it was the second of those articles I was referring to in my original post.