Coronavirus (OLD)

Originally Posted by Carth

Crikey

I wonder how many infected people gave blood earlier in the year, and which hospitals that blood was used in?

https://www.blood.co.uk/news-and-cam...id-19-updates/

Will my blood be tested for coronavirus?

No we do not test for coronavirus because there is no evidence it is transmitted through blood donation.

https://my.blood.co.uk/KnowledgeBase...us%20infection

Recovery from Coronavirus definition: If you are well and free of fever and respiratory symptoms. A cough may persist for several weeks in some people, despite the coronavirus infection having cleared, but this won’t stop you donating if you are otherwise well and all guidance above has been followed.

Can you get coronavirus through blood donation? There is no evidence of any type of coronavirus being transmitted through blood donation.

Do you test for coronavirus? There is no requirement to test for SARS-CoV-2. Coronaviruses are a family of viruses. There is no evidence of any type of coronavirus being transmitted through blood donation.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.blood.co.uk/news-and-cam...id-19-updates/

https://my.blood.co.uk/KnowledgeBase...us%20infection

Can you get coronavirus through blood donation? There is no evidence of any type of coronavirus being transmitted through blood donation.

Do you test for coronavirus? There is no requirement to test for SARS-CoV-2. Coronaviruses are a family of viruses. There is no evidence of any type of coronavirus being transmitted through blood donation.

That is why "there is no evidence that .." used by "the science" is the true example of weasel wording and should be vilified.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Musings

Things that the government deserve credit for.

Implementing lockdown. (the timing however is debatable)
The furlough scheme.
The building of the nighthinggales

I"m genuinely struggling to think of others

Things the government should be held to account and challenged/owes the population a genuine explanation on

Abandoning the testing regime
The failure to force international arrivals to quarantine earlier.
The absolute debacle that has become track and trace
The third highest death rate in the world.
Lifting lockdown too early.

Whilst I don't like Boris one bit, I was quite impressed with the way he initially dealt with the situation. He does however now look like he has no long term plan, and is ignoring the science

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

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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

Yep, can add those

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

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Yep, can add those

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

Agreed.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Carth

Crikey

I wonder how many infected people gave blood earlier in the year, and which hospitals that blood was used in?

Will my blood be tested for coronavirus? No we do not test for coronavirus because there is no evidence it is transmitted through blood donation.

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.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That is why "there is no evidence that .." used by "the science" is the true example of weasel wording and should be vilified.

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

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

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

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.

It is weasel wording. If the statement expanded on why there is no evidence, it would not be weasel wording. Everyone on this thread can think of examples where "they" have said stuff like that and we don't know whether or not the case has been examined.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It is weasel wording. If the statement expanded on why there is no evidence, it would not be weasel wording. Everyone on this thread can think of examples where "they" have said stuff like that and we don't know whether or not the case has been examined.

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

[jfman]

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

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It is weasel wording. If the statement expanded on why there is no evidence, it would not be weasel wording. Everyone on this thread can think of examples where "they" have said stuff like that and we don't know whether or not the case has been examined.

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.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

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.

So it seems we were talking at cross-purposes, sort of.
I was criticising the pat statement "there is no evidence ..." and you have provided useful information about CV in blood.

Downquark got and supported my point:

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

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

So it seems we were talking at cross-purposes, sort of.
I was criticising the pat statement "there is no evidence ..." and you have provided useful information about CV in blood.

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'

[downquark1]

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.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

There appears to be an almost pathological need amongst some to characterise every decision of the U.K. gov as necessarily and always wrong, which I’m quite certain has nothing to do with Covid-19 and everything to do with the individual in No.10 and his party affiliation.

There will be a public enquiry once this is over and done with, and doubtless it will identify errors, but I’m sure what it won’t do is draw crass and deliberately misleading parallels with very small countries in isolated corners of the Pacific ocean.

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.