Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Misc] Being post corona



Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
31,845
Brighton
I can’t stop thinking about how important this could be. Once people are “post-virus”, as far as we are aware it looks very unlikely they can catch the virus again, if their body’s immune system has done its job.

If that is the case, these people could potentially be invaluable to our community - helping older/vulnerable people who will be self isolating to a very large extent. How can this be harnessed? Could a test ever be invented to see if someone was “post corona”?

I appreciate this could be really tricky, given the government’s understandable plan to focus on testing the likely more at risk/critical. I just can’t shake the idea there might be some miracle solution to this that would massively help both those in need, and stem the overall flow of infection.
 






beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,310


Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
31,845
Brighton
yes, you can test for antibodies of virus.

Well that’s good news. The issue will be whether there will be the resources to do so, won’t it?

If I get to a point of post corona I would absolutely want to do everything I can to help those around me at risk.
 


herecomesaregular

We're in the pipe, 5 by 5
Oct 27, 2008
4,224
Still in Brighton
Well that’s good news. The issue will be whether there will be the resources to do so, won’t it?

If I get to a point of post corona I would absolutely want to do everything I can to help those around me at risk.

I'm assuming if you've had it you can't catch it again (your personal safety is fine) but how much less dangerous are you to others, as a carrier? (from touching objects, people coughing on you who have it etc)
 




Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
31,845
Brighton
I'm assuming if you've had it you can't catch it again (your personal safety is fine) but how much less dangerous are you to others, as a carrier? (from touching objects, people coughing on you who have it etc)

Again I may well be wrong, but I was assuming - given the recommended 7 day isolation - that post that period it would very unlikely you would pass it on to others, if it is no longer in your system?
 




bhafc99

Well-known member
Oct 14, 2003
7,090
Dubai
The Post Coronas. Think I’ve got their first album somewhere. It’s not bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 




The Optimist

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Apr 6, 2008
2,611
Lewisham
I'm assuming if you've had it you can't catch it again (your personal safety is fine) but how much less dangerous are you to others, as a carrier? (from touching objects, people coughing on you who have it etc)

I think once fully recovered you are not contagious. Similar to a cold, once recovered you can’t pass it on.
 


Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,738
Back in Sussex
Well that’s good news. The issue will be whether there will be the resources to do so, won’t it?

If I get to a point of post corona I would absolutely want to do everything I can to help those around me at risk.

It's common protocol to do this.

I've read, although I can't be bothered to try and find the source now, that the Chinese have already started this. One of the key findings that will come out of their results is just how many people had it that either didn't know, or had symptoms so mild that they did not go to hospital and weren't tested.

Everyone believes there are far more people out there that have it than we know about, the obvious hope is the level of magnitude is massive, ie the 80% - fine / 20% - need hospital treatment ratio becomes 90/10 or 95/5 or even better. That would also mean the fatality rate is a lot better than currently stated too. Fingers crossed....
 


Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
31,845
Brighton
It's common protocol to do this.

I've read, although I can't be bothered to try and find the source now, that the Chinese have already started this. One of the key findings that will come out of their results is just how many people had it that either didn't know, or had symptoms so mild that they did not go to hospital and weren't tested.

Everyone believes there are far more people out there that have it than we know about, the obvious hope is the level of magnitude is massive, ie the 80% - fine / 20% - need hospital treatment ratio becomes 90/10 or 95/5 or even better. That would also mean the fatality rate is a lot better than currently stated too. Fingers crossed....

Double-edged sword, isn’t it? As it means that yes, the fatality rate will be a lot lower, but the flip side is the spread and number infected will be much larger.

I think the frustration and anxiety will come in a few days/weeks/months with people being unsure if they have had it or not. Some surety there would massively help the fight, the economy etc.
 




Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,738
Back in Sussex
Double-edged sword, isn’t it? As it means that yes, the fatality rate will be a lot lower, but the flip side is the spread and number infected will be much larger.

I'm not sure how that's a double-edged sword. Loads of people having had it and not known can only be a good thing as it means the disease isn't quite as serious as feared, and there is herd immunity being developed (on the assumption that you can't catch it twice in short order).

I think the frustration and anxiety will come in a few days/weeks/months with people being unsure if they have had it or not. Some surety there would massively help the fight, the economy etc.

Very much so. Also from a family perspective. If you are social distancing from vulnerable elderly family, you may never know if you've had it and are "safe", even if you've had some mild symptoms and recovered. At any time you could be in the early incubation period, which also seems to be when you are most infectious.
 








Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,738
Back in Sussex




hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,320
Chandlers Ford
I'm assuming if you've had it you can't catch it again (your personal safety is fine) but how much less dangerous are you to others, as a carrier? (from touching objects, people coughing on you who have it etc)

Again I may well be wrong, but I was assuming - given the recommended 7 day isolation - that post that period it would very unlikely you would pass it on to others, if it is no longer in your system?

'In your system, no', but that wasn't his point.

He meant that you'd still need to be careful not to physically transfer the virus to someone (touching an infected door handle on the way in, etc)
 






A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
17,799
Deepest, darkest Sussex
I can't stop reading this thread title to the tune of "My Sharona"
 


Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
31,845
Brighton
I'm not sure how that's a double-edged sword. Loads of people having had it and not known can only be a good thing as it means the disease isn't quite as serious as feared, and there is herd immunity being developed (on the assumption that you can't catch it twice in short order).



Very much so. Also from a family perspective. If you are social distancing from vulnerable elderly family, you may never know if you've had it and are "safe", even if you've had some mild symptoms and recovered. At any time you could be in the early incubation period, which also seems to be when you are most infectious.

The double edged sword in referring to is that the wider it spreads, the more elderly and at risk that will die, rather than it spreading less due to higher visibility of the virus. Does that make sense?
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here