Forum Topic

Sue, Lucille. I'm not disputing that the virus originated in Wuhan, China in November 2019 (the article I read said Dr Li had been silenced by the government in December) and was the result of, probably, a Bat virus jumping species. I definitely have no sympasthy with the Chinese treatment of animals and hope this  results in the permanent cloisure of their live animal markets (but US large factory farms aren't much better in the way animals are treated as commodities). The Chinese authorities were obviously wrong and irresponsible to suppress this information, and I'd agree given the nature of the Chinese authoritarian government one has to be suspicious of any information they release, although there does seen to be evidence that having realised their mistake they've be cooperating closely with the WHO.  Trump isn't doing that well either, he said the Democrats were politicising the virus threat and implied it might be a hoax (it was actually a supporter who said it was a hoax but he quoted them and didn't say it was incorrect); the US media has pointed out a number of times he's contradicted his experts (there's a video of Dr Anthony Fauci, a well respected immunoligist, trying to stiffle a snigger during one of Trumps briefings; it obviously just got too much) but at least unlike China the US has a free press. I'm jyst suspicious thgat having been complacent at thge beginning he's looking for someone to demonize like he usually does (at least the Mexicans are off the hook for this one). I just feel sorry for some Chinese friends from Malaysia who live in the UK and until retirement one worked in the NHS, the other in medicine research at IC; I'm not sure they've ever been to China - they've never talked about it and I can't think they'd be sympathetic to the regime there. Anyway, I'm probably not goiijng to change your minds but at least the people doing the research into vaccines know it by its assigned name, COVID-19, and I would expect the US president to use that name. 

Michael Ixer ● 2271d

I think the point is that there is a proper name assigned to the virus: COVID-19. A US journalist spotted that Trump had crossed out the correct name and replaced it with "Chinese". Apart from the fact that upsets scientific pendants like me, unfortunately Trump does not distinguish between Chinese people as an ethnic group and the Chinese government officials, who were probably local rather than central government ones, that tried to suppress the original reports by Dr Li in Wuhan around December 2019. This has led to Chinese people being abused by some in western countries, even those that were born or live in western countries such as the US or UK. Once again, Trump fails to see the consequences of his actions - or is deliberately demonising others to cover his own shortcomings. There does seems good evidence that COVID-19 was caused by a species jumping, possibly from bats, to humans at a live animal market in China. Given our own food scares because of poor animal husbandry controls - for example, BSE or condemned horse meat entering the food chain - we aren't in a position to be too judgemental. We should remember that many Chinese are Buddhist vegetarians; in fact the origins of fake meat made from seitan and tofu go back to Buddhist Chinese cooking in the middle ages. (COVID-19 is another great case for a veggie/vegan diet.) Trump is using the term "Chinese virus" to mask the fact he misunderstood the seriousness of what he originally claimed was a hoax, and may have even suggested it was a Democrat plot to destroy the economy before November's presidential elections. As pointed out elsewhere on this forum, Germany currently has a lower mortality rate then elsewhere: perhaps one needs to looks at an inverse correlation of death rates to leadership IQs? Still, not to worry, Mike Pence and his far right evangelists are praying for us all ... but seriously, forget whether Trump is a racist, Ed is correct, we need to hold our own politicians to account and ensure those test kits and protective equipment gets to the NHS expeditiously.

Michael Ixer ● 2271d

The Imperial College paper that Jonathan refers to is well worth reading, although it's pretty heavy going and also quite long — but one thing we're going to have is time to read stuff (where's my copy of War and Peace?). The paper discusses two strategies: mitigation,  focusing on slowing but not necessarily stopping epidemic spread (this was the policy followed in the UK until Monday's change of course), and suppression, the closure of schools and universities, case isolation and population-wide social distancing; the authors use simulation modelling to explore the effects of the two strategies. They conclude that mitigation is unlikely to be a viable option without overwhelming healthcare systems (because there are just too many cases for the system to cope with), so that suppression is likely to be necessary in countries that are able to implement the intensive controls required.
The results suggest that suppression would have the largest impact; and in combination with other interventions – notably home isolation of cases and school and university closure – has the potential to suppress transmission below the crucial threshold of R=1 that's required to rapidly reduce case incidence [R is the average number of secondary infections that each case generates]. A minimum policy for effective suppression is therefore population-wide social distancing combined with home isolation of cases and school and university closure; this is the policy that the government is edging uneasily towards.
But, and this is important and may not be fully realised as yet, in order to avoid a rebound in transmission, these policies will need to be maintained until large stocks of vaccine are available to immunise the population – which could be 18 months or more (a lot more than the few months discussed so far); without this, further outbreaks are likely so we'll be starting all over again.
The full paper can be downloaded here: https://tinyurl.com/tcdy42y


Richard Carter ● 2275d

Sue. Immunology and pandemics aren't my field so someone will probably correct me! My understanding in antibodies are a binary attribute: either you have them from catching the virus or being vaccinated (not an option with COVID-19 yet) and have a very small chance of reinfection for a period (not yet defined for COVID-19) or you don't have them so can catch the virus (unless you have some natural immunity from your genetic material that a small number of people have from AIDS). As more people get antibodies then they can't catch the illness and pass the virus on so transmission then slows and "the heard" builds up immunity. I guess the current feeling is it's better for the heard immunity is build up over the next few months in the under 70s? One can't get immunity by just being in the community without suffering the infection. It's a bit like the MMR vaccine: while the majority are vaccinated then the risk of those not vaccinated getting measles  or mumps is very small but once many are not vaccinated then the disease starts spreading again. (I consider it a bit like lead moderating rods in nuclear fission reactors that absorb neutrons from splitting the next uranium or plutonium atom; people with immunity block  the virus from passing onto another person.)So it's a questing of whether someone over 70 wants to risk infection and illness now for protection later - although we don't know yet how long that protection will last; or do they want to isolate for a while in the hope there's either a vaccine available soon (12-18 months???) or the herd becomes immune ...

Michael Ixer ● 2275d

<