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

[News] The Coronavirus Good News thread



Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
31,948
Brighton
Antibodies testing - although useful to an extent, doesn’t identify people that have some previous immunity from other coronaviruses and T cell response is thought to be a possibly even more powerful response than your immune response, as these cells remember viruses and attack them, without your immune system.

More evidence does seem to be emerging on T cells being potentially the biggest weapon, I simply do not buy that in Stockholm only circa 10% of people are immune, just seems a totally unrealistic number to me.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8412807/Can-cold-coronavirus-immunity.html

This. It's getting really quite frustrating how many otherwise sensible, level-headed people are completely ignoring the emerging science on this.

Would also explain the now near-confirmed 70-80% asymptomatic rate - seen that percentage range now very consistently across many countries.
 




dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
52,930
Burgess Hill
Antibodies testing - although useful to an extent, doesn’t identify people that have some previous immunity from other coronaviruses and T cell response is thought to be a possibly even more powerful response than your immune response, as these cells remember viruses and attack them, without your immune system.

More evidence does seem to be emerging on T cells being potentially the biggest weapon, I simply do not buy that in Stockholm only circa 10% of people are immune, just seems a totally unrealistic number to me.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8412807/Can-cold-coronavirus-immunity.html

Absolutely....it's looking more and more like there is a much greater immunity or asymptomatic response. I'm not sure of the difference, but the outcome is the same for the individual presumably - also not clear whether either would mean a propensity to transmit though - so whilst I may have had it/not be capable of getting it, I may be able to transmit to someone who can ?
 


The Wizard

Well-known member
Jul 2, 2009
18,383
The asymptomatic transmission rate is very widely disputed at the moment but I believe personally there has to be some reason why children are almost always without symptoms and they are also coincidentally extremely unlikely to pass the virus on to anyone else plus I guess logic tells you if you have no symptoms you are much less likely to spread a virus that mainly spreads through airborne viral particles.

Despite increased freedoms and packed beaches 2 weeks ago, cases are dropping like a stone now. 14081132-EFF2-4A7D-8BA8-9CA2C80C109A.jpeg
 


LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
47,044
SHOREHAM BY SEA
The asymptomatic transmission rate is very widely disputed at the moment but I believe personally there has to be some reason why children are almost always without symptoms and they are also coincidentally extremely unlikely to pass the virus on to anyone else plus I guess logic tells you if you have no symptoms you are much less likely to spread a virus that mainly spreads through airborne viral particles.

Despite increased freedoms and packed beaches 2 weeks ago, cases are dropping like a stone now.View attachment 124793


Interesting points also on R within the same twitter thread
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1271369725063430146?s=21
 


Poojah

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2010
1,881
Leeds
There are some fairly large margins of error here due to the relatively small data sample, but this data from the ONS as reported by the BBC suggests that the number of people testing possibly in the community is down by between two thirds and three quarters versus a month ago:

_112873326_optimised-community_infections_bars12jun-nc.png

That’s a remarkable downturn.
 






The Wizard

Well-known member
Jul 2, 2009
18,383
Just 70 deaths England hospital deaths announced today, was 149 last Friday. Another massive drop.

Double figures 3 days in a row.

88>83>70

Normally today is a very high number from PHE outside hospital deaths so don’t be alarmed if the U.K. total is higher than yesterday, last Friday was 357 so that’s the reference, will update when it gets announced.

EDIT: Update with full U.K. figures
BB2F21AB-8E28-4293-BA4C-E80B5FE81F8A.jpeg

7 day rolling average NHS England drops below 100
81578319-4925-477F-B722-A6166972E62B.png
 
Last edited:






The Wizard

Well-known member
Jul 2, 2009
18,383
A rise in infections is a concern, but otherwise the numbers looking better

Difficulty is though we don’t have the number of people tested so we can’t really decipher whether these are significant or not. They could have tested 10k more people today which makes it less of a gain but could be less, I understand why they have had some problem with data because it’s probably very difficult to track exact numbers of postal swabs/in person etc but for 2 weeks now it’s been the same, not good enough really.

There was 6000 more in person pillar 2 tests today.
 


Notters

Well-known member
Oct 20, 2003
24,871
Guiseley
There are some fairly large margins of error here due to the relatively small data sample, but this data from the ONS as reported by the BBC suggests that the number of people testing possibly in the community is down by between two thirds and three quarters versus a month ago:

View attachment 124796

That’s a remarkable downturn.

I don't understand this - surely they know how many people are testing positive? So surely it should be either Actual (not estimated) number of people in the community testing positive', or, 'estimated number of people in the community with coronavirus?'
 


Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,906
Back in Sussex
I don't understand this - surely they know how many people are testing positive? So surely it should be either Actual (not estimated) number of people in the community testing positive', or, 'estimated number of people in the community with coronavirus?'

Yeah, they know how many are testing positive from the random testing undertaken.

It is the extrapolation of those testing results to determine how many people across the entire population could be infected which is subject to statistical variance.
 




LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
47,044
SHOREHAM BY SEA
Difficulty is though we don’t have the number of people tested so we can’t really decipher whether these are significant or not. They could have tested 10k more people today which makes it less of a gain but could be less, I understand why they have had some problem with data because it’s probably very difficult to track exact numbers of postal swabs/in person etc but for 2 weeks now it’s been the same, not good enough really.

There was 6000 more in person pillar 2 tests today.

Be interesting to see number of infections that translate into symptoms
 












The Wizard

Well-known member
Jul 2, 2009
18,383
I’ll stick this here ..I’m assuming it’s in reference to comments in the briefing about R in SW

https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1271485698349170688?s=21

Yeah, for anyone worried by the disgraceful fear inducing media nonsense about R AGAIN, this chart below shows you exactly why R - at low rate of cases, is absolutely totally and utterly useless, at these kind of numbers local tracking and confining is much more important.

https://twitter.com/dontbetyet/status/1271473163961012228?s=21

182D4CAD-1DC4-43CE-A3B8-E149D22429B6.jpeg
 


LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
47,044
SHOREHAM BY SEA




saulth

New member
May 28, 2020
83
Maria Neira, director of the Department of Public Health of WHO, stated recently that they don't think a vaccine will be commercially available before early 2021, but that good news regarding treatments are expected in the coming weeks. Wonder what they mean...
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here