OV9

The comparisons to HIV are that it might just stick around. I'm not sure why they didn't compare it to measles, which they then do further in the statement, but I guess that doesn't get peoples attention

Beany wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 9:45 am The comparisons to HIV are that it might just stick around. I'm not sure why they didn't compare it to measles, which they then do further in the statement, but I guess that doesn't get peoples attention

Ramp up the fear to get Karen going on Facebook so she can post more memes that don't have any basis in fact.

Yup, fucking helpful innit?

Beany wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 9:45 am The comparisons to HIV are that it might just stick around. I'm not sure why they didn't compare it to measles, which they then do further in the statement, but I guess that doesn't get peoples attention

Or, they could have just gone with something widespread and seasonal, you knw like the flu virus...

drcarlos wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 9:33 am

Jobbo wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 9:28 am

drcarlos wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 9:03 am

Antibody test approved for use in the uk. Let’s see how many they roll out.

That is the most positive news yet. It's almost as if testing was important, who'd have thought it?

I agree, this should be front and centre on the BBC, instead it's a minor headline with a statement from the WHO trying to devalue it.

I’d guess people want to wait until they know whether it works before making a big deal out of it.

See Trump needlessly causing drug shortages for people who need them by publicising unverified reports.

Have you seen Trump has had a go at his chief medical guy for not giving him the green light to restart the economy? The guys a fucking weapon.

ZedLeg wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 10:56 am

drcarlos wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 9:33 am

Jobbo wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 9:28 am
That is the most positive news yet. It's almost as if testing was important, who'd have thought it?

I agree, this should be front and centre on the BBC, instead it's a minor headline with a statement from the WHO trying to devalue it.

I’d guess people want to wait until they know whether it works before making a big deal out of it.

See Trump needlessly causing drug shortages for people who need them by publicising unverified reports.

I thought they'd found that the antibodies potetnially fade away after 1-2mo? Hence the issues with a traditional vaccine.

ZedLeg wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 10:56 am

drcarlos wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 9:33 am

Jobbo wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 9:28 am
That is the most positive news yet. It's almost as if testing was important, who'd have thought it?

I agree, this should be front and centre on the BBC, instead it's a minor headline with a statement from the WHO trying to devalue it.

I’d guess people want to wait until they know whether it works before making a big deal out of it.

See Trump needlessly causing drug shortages for people who need them by publicising unverified reports.

Not unverified, tested and confirmed to be reliable at portondown: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52656808

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 11:04 am

ZedLeg wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 10:56 am

drcarlos wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 9:33 am

I agree, this should be front and centre on the BBC, instead it's a minor headline with a statement from the WHO trying to devalue it.

I’d guess people want to wait until they know whether it works before making a big deal out of it.

See Trump needlessly causing drug shortages for people who need them by publicising unverified reports.

I thought they'd found that the antibodies potetnially fade away after 1-2mo? Hence the issues with a traditional vaccine.

Having only just got a reliable test, I cannot see how they could have made any sort of statement based on this before. It you can't reliably test for antibodies how do you know if they can fade?

“Sources told the BBC the Roche test was the first one to offer serious potential.”

"This in turn may indicate some immunity to future infection, although the extent to which the presence of antibodies indicates immunity remains unclear."

Not quite a sure thing yet though.

You are right we cannot yet tell because there is zero data, but if the response is similar to the common cold or flu (which we know it's related to) we are immune to that variant for life once we've had it and it's only a new strain that can infect. Even then potentially the immune response is better because the majority of the markers are the same.

As for vaccines and that immune response it is different and it can fade but we aren't talking vaccines here but people who had the virus in it's pure undoctored form.

You’re moving away from the point of why the press isn’t making a big deal about it.

It’s not at the stage where it should be reported as a big deal yet imo.

Is everyone blind?!

Mito Man wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 12:00 pm Is everyone blind?!

It's literally just moved on my BBC homepage now. It was leading with the A&E visits story. I did check the others Sky, Indy, Telegraph and they are all leading with it.

I never actually go on news sites anymore

A lot of scientists on here, wtf are you doing wasting time on here, get back in your labs and find that cure!!

ZedLeg wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 11:50 am You’re moving away from the point of why the press isn’t making a big deal about it.

It’s not at the stage where it should be reported as a big deal yet imo.

It's apparently 99.8% effective at detecting that somebody has not caught COVID19 yet, and 100% effective at detecting that somebody has previously had it.

That is accurate testing. The next question (which does remain unanswered) is whether having caught it previously makes you immune. However, effectively answering that question is very much accelerated by this test, and the need for this test is then magnified if the answer is yes.

Scientists can theorise all day but until their theories are tested, that's all they are. I'm absolutely not doing down the scientists, as the Government seem keen to do; I''m saying they need reliable data to work with. This seems like a massive breakthrough.

I wonder if this test is the one that's been being used in Europe. There's an article on the Telegraph about how they've identified from antibody testing in parts of Europe there's incredibly low herd immunity e.g. France at only 4.4% having tested positive for the antibodies.

This still doesn't answer the declining antibody issue, but could clearly have a massive bearing on the results. I guess, as Simon says, what this does mean is that we can now test what happens in that regard. Havin said that, I thought it was Porton Down that had found the antibody decays over time anyway.

Yep seems to be the one that’s being used in EU/USA already. Only 5% immunity out of 60,000 initial tests in Spain.
South Korea showed the shame a while ago. So it does seem like the vast majority of people just had a bad cold or flu and misidentified it for covid.

Mito Man wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 2:14 pm Yep seems to be the one that’s being used in EU/USA already. Only 5% immunity out of 60,000 initial tests in Spain.
South Korea showed the shame a while ago. So it does seem like the vast majority of people just had a bad cold or flu and misidentified it for covid.

Apparently not: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12723 ... in-testing

Manufactured n the UK but rejected by the UK as not accurate.