- Forums
- Other topics
- Other stuff
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
Time is the enemy, so rather than act quickly with the available resources, you would wait until it can be done more cheaply? Doesn't that sound contradictory to you?Boro Boy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21 2020 7:15pmNo I'm suggesting that: time is the enemy and the Govt. needs lots of time to tackle issues so why waste time talking to small over priced suppliers? Meanwhile the cash grabbers are selling off to other buyers who may be gullible enough to pay these small suppliers.Chadwick wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21 2020 7:11pmAre you suggesting we should just let the NHS go without the promised PPE because we have run out of PPE from the reasonably priced sources?Boro Boy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21 2020 3:36pmLook at this way: time is the enemy and the Govt. needs lots of time to tackle issues so why waste time talking to small over priced suppliers? Meanwhile the cash grabbers are selling off to other buyers who may be gullible enough to pay these small suppliers.
Usually, having had a virus does provide some immunity or lowered risk. That's basically how a vaccine works. We just haven't had a chance to prove it with this virus. The imperfect nature of the testing results means it's difficult to say with certainty that you've definitely had it previously, or if it's the same strain. It is a numbers game and there are so many other variables at play (eg there's some evidence that African/Asian people are at more risk) that it will take time to gather sufficient evidence to form a conclusion.macliam wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25 2020 2:47pmBad news for those epecting an early end to all this. The WHO has pubished a paper regarding the use of immunity "passports" post-testing. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentar ... f-covid-19
They say "At this point in the pandemic, there is not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee the accuracy of an “immunity passport” or “risk-free certificate.” People who assume that they are immune to a second infection because they have received a positive test result may ignore public health advice"
So within this is the confirmation that immunity has still not been proven...... those who have had the virus are not "safe".
+1Chadwick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26 2020 11:13amTime is the enemy, so rather than act quickly with the available resources, you would wait until it can be done more cheaply? Doesn't that sound contradictory to you?Boro Boy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21 2020 7:15pmNo I'm suggesting that: time is the enemy and the Govt. needs lots of time to tackle issues so why waste time talking to small over priced suppliers? Meanwhile the cash grabbers are selling off to other buyers who may be gullible enough to pay these small suppliers.
THE NHS is saying they don't have PPE. Not 'we must save money'.
+1Chadwick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26 2020 11:17amUsually, having had a virus does provide some immunity or lowered risk. That's basically how a vaccine works. We just haven't had a chance t prove it with this virus. The imperfect nature of the testing results means it's difficult to say with certainty that you've definitely had it previously, or if it's the same strain. It is a numbers game and there are so many other variables at play (eg there's some evidence that African/Asian people are at more risk) that it will take time to gather sufficient evidence to form a conclusion.macliam wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25 2020 2:47pmBad news for those epecting an early end to all this. The WHO has pubished a paper regarding the use of immunity "passports" post-testing. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentar ... f-covid-19
They say "At this point in the pandemic, there is not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee the accuracy of an “immunity passport” or “risk-free certificate.” People who assume that they are immune to a second infection because they have received a positive test result may ignore public health advice"
So within this is the confirmation that immunity has still not been proven...... those who have had the virus are not "safe".
Have you not read the post by macliam above yours. Nothing new or different in your post.Boro Boy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26 2020 11:19pmNot the first article I have read over recent weeks saying it is not sure that having had Covid 19 it will protect you against future infection from Covid 19 again: https://www.france24.com/en/20200425-no ... 2463152530 That seems a worry...!
Yes I did read it and thought it was a valid addition to my entry on 14th April:Richard Frost wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26 2020 11:41pmHave you not read the post by macliam above yours. Nothing new or different in your post.Boro Boy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26 2020 11:19pmNot the first article I have read over recent weeks saying it is not sure that having had Covid 19 it will protect you against future infection from Covid 19 again: https://www.france24.com/en/20200425-no ... 2463152530 That seems a worry...!
Incorrect - full immunity only exists if the virus does not mutate and even then may just result in a lesser infection (not "immunity" as such, but increased antibodies in the bloodstream accelerating the fightback). Otherwise, we would not get colds and we would not need annual flu jabs. Testing can show an increase in antibodies, but not the effect of this increase - and false negatives are fatal in an epidemic. Therefore assumptions must be put to one side until some degree of immunity is proven, not anticipated.Chadwick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26 2020 11:17amUsually, having had a virus does provide some immunity or lowered risk. That's basically how a vaccine works. We just haven't had a chance t prove it with this virus. The imperfect nature of the testing results means it's difficult to say with certainty that you've definitely had it previously, or if it's the same strain. It is a numbers game and there are so many other variables at play (eg there's some evidence that African/Asian people are at more risk) that it will take time to gather sufficient evidence to form a conclusion.macliam wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25 2020 2:47pmBad news for those epecting an early end to all this. The WHO has pubished a paper regarding the use of immunity "passports" post-testing. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentar ... f-covid-19
They say "At this point in the pandemic, there is not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee the accuracy of an “immunity passport” or “risk-free certificate.” People who assume that they are immune to a second infection because they have received a positive test result may ignore public health advice"
So within this is the confirmation that immunity has still not been proven...... those who have had the virus are not "safe".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests