Blah Blah

Just a couple of points. Re; NHS vs Private. In a pandemic, you would expect the NHS to be the primary lead, because it is a public health issue, with a government led response. No-one would be going into private care on this one, unless as a last resort (ie lack of NHS ICU capacity), and it would be the NHS referring them there. As for his care at the hospital itself. He is the Prime Minister, with all the security concerns that entails. So of course he would be separated. The actual care he would receive though would be no different to that of ANY patient. So for me, neither of these things are an issue, and when it comes to the actual virus, he absolutely is just like the rest of us. That is why he ended up in hospital in the first place. Time will tell though if his own experience changes government policy towards the NHS and public sector in general.

I thought it was a genuine and heartfelt speech ????. And I would hope it leads to a more appreciative line of policy, not just towards NHS workers, but to all those key workers, from the min wage shop workers and drivers, to the refuse collectors and so on. They are the people that really keep everything going in a crisis. I also appreciate that Boris stressed the international contribution to our NHS. After the toxic language of the last three years towards migrants, it was good to finally see some recognition of the huge contribution many of those migrants make. Not sure if that will lead to a similar epiphany from Priti Patel, but we can hope.

Just a note of caution. It hasn't completed any trials yet, so drawing conclusions around how it might be of benefit is a bit premature. Malaria is not a viral condition. It is parasitic, and chloroquine phosphate works by stopping the growth of parasites in the red blood cells. If someone has liver or renal damage, there is a higher risk of side effects and in some people it can cause renal damage. So this is why it possibly won't be helpful to patients with serve symptoms, mainly because one of the worst impacts of COVID19 are those cytokine storms. The French trial stopped because it induced increased heart rates in patients. So how might it help some COVID patients? Studies are looking for RNA suppression. In other words, does chloroquine inhibit the rate of viral RNA increase? And that is where there is some suggestion of effectiveness, up to as much as by 50%. Now while that is not stopping the virus completely, it is significantly reducing the viral load, which then gives the immune system more of a chance of producing the correct amount of antibodies - thereby lowering the risk of both developing more severe symptoms and those cytokine storms. More studies need to carried out, and findings published and peer reviewed before any conclusions can be drawn as absolutes. Dosage is important as well as avoiding risks and side effects. Hydroxychloroquine is more soluble and less toxic and has less side effects than chloroquine phosphate. It also seems to achieve slightly better RNA inhibition rates so that might be where research focuses moving forward. We don't have any tailored treatment at the moment, so anything that works in any way, even if only for a few patients, should be explored and used if safe to do so.

I just watched it. I think it is very good and really explains the science in terms that everyone should be able to understand. Everyone should watch it imo.

Not quite true. The Chinese did make the sale of some wild animals illegal after the first SARS outbreak, but clearly that did not go far enough. It is enforcement that is the issue, even with the complete ban on the farming, sale and consumption of wild animals that China is now seeking to impose. This article highlights the challenge articulately. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/05/asia/china-coronavirus-wildlife-consumption-ban-intl-hnk/index.html Also worth pointing out that this is not only an issue in China, but parts of Asia generally. And even in the West, we have our own challenges around intensive animal farming. Swine and avian flu pandemics for example, can emerge anywhere as we all farm these animals intensively. So I would argue that we all need to think about our whole approach to animal consumption over the longer term.

To be fair, I think both are equally thoughtless and as bad as each other. Those Labour officials have been punished (rightly so). Boris suffered no consequences for his language about muslims, gay men and black people however. It is all unacceptable and if it is going to be rooted out from politics, then it ALL has to be admonished in equal measure. Until then, it remains a case of pot simply calling the kettle black.

I think that given what we know about the virus, its infection and mortality rates (with all their variations), that it is hard to believe the Chinese account. The first cases started presenting themselves to Chinese hospitals in late November. That is when those doctors (who were initially silenced) started talking about SARS like symptoms in several patients on their whatsapp group. We now know that an infected person can take as much as two weeks to show symptoms and that some people show little or no symptoms at all. We also know that during this period, those people are infectious and that this virus spreads far more easily than flu. In early January, China claimed there was no human to human transmission. Now whilst it does take time for science to understand a novel virus, one of the first things that will be looked at, is transmission, both method and rate. So putting all of that together, it makes little sense that either infection rates, or mortality would be so low in China. It also explains perhaps the urgency with which China also entirely locked down entire cities and provinces. No-one would have expected them to have all the answers, but the world does have a right to expect honesty, given what has followed. I would also add that I don't think they are the only nation being dishonest about infection and mortality rates either.

France has stopped its trials into Chloroquine for now because of the increased risk of heart failure in patients. How the body responds in a very sick patient, may be different to how the body responds in someone with mild symptoms. There is just so much going on when the body is fighting severe infection. Chloroquine may well become part of some combination drug treatment in a prescribed dose though. Essentially it works to reduce fever and inflammation. My hope would be that by the end of the year, there is some combination drug treatment that works at the early stages, that prevents the need for ventilation and thereby lowering mortality rates. That will have to be accompanied by mass and continuous testing, until we have hard evidence of any long lasting immunity emerging in those who have recovered from the virus.

There is no doubting that this is the biggest challenge to our way of life in 100 years. And getting back to normal is going to depend on a lot of things we have no control over and many other things that we do. Until we have a vaccine, or drug treatment that works, a lot of things are going to be framed by the risk we face. And when I say we, that is not going to be everyone facing equal risk. So what kind of society will that lead to? And what kind of protections will we have in place to level out the additional inequality created by that. Then of course there will be the paranoia that will set in. Some people may never get too close to another person forever! So my view is that a vaccine can not come quick enough, but they take years to develop. The fastest new viral vaccine ever developed is one for Ebola and that took five years. Bearing in mind that SARS Cov still has no vaccine, I would be cautious about any claim that says we can get there in 18 months, although there is a lot of existing research around SARS viruses and vaccine development to draw upon, which may help speed things up. At the moment, we are simply trying to buy time and avoid a second wave. But in all honesty, I don't think life is going to be normal for some time. The virus is one thing, the economic damage is another. As for Trump, his press conferences are just vacuous waffle most of the time. He is not very bright really.

Yes it has fallen, along with some other injuries people arrive at A+E with, following pub fights, street robbery, road accidents and from playing sports. I think Police may have a busy time over the weekend breaking up gatherings.

Even if any MP argued for full privatisation of the NHS, there will be no public appetite for that after this pandemic. You only have to see the grim picture emerging from the USA to see the failings of their healthcare system. Completely agree that big pharma is where the push will be. This is where the focus should be in watching trade talks moving forward. Worth pointing out too that pharmaceuticals are our biggest export after motor vehicles to the EU. So we are also in this game. But the issue around patents and licensing is what shapes that game. Another thing to watch will be who monopolises any effective treatment or vaccine that emerges for COVID19. The ethical approach would be waiver patents and licensing (and some pharma companies may well do that) but research and development is a very expensive thing and pharma companies rely on the profits they make from that licensing to pay for that. We already have people dying from conditions that can be treated, because either they or their health care systems can not afford to pay for the drugs that could be used to treat them. So we shall see.

Point taken Plough Man. Hard to not be pompous with Uncleglen though, given his disdain for anyone outside of his right wing political views.

I agree. But to be fair to government, things have moved so fast that developing policy that takes consideration of all the different impacts is an impossible task. This is why things change daily following the flagging of issues by various professional bodies. For example, social workers are starting to raise concerns about children at risk, that they can not visit and whom are not being send to the school options open to them. The last place you want a child at risk to be, is in the home for 24 hours a day. The same is true of those in care homes that do not understand what is happening and why relatives can not visit. All of these things are challenges.

He will stay in intensive care either way until he is clear of the virus now. That is the protocol. There is an upside to this though. He will come out of hospital as a PM who has a full understanding of not only the dangers of this virus, but also of how hard NHS staff are working and what they are risking in terms of their own health and well being (both mental and physical). And this may well have a bearing (in a positive way) on government policy moving forward.

Oh behave Uncleglen. Boris did not get a majority of votes cast at the general election. A third of the electorate did not vote at all. Of 49 million eligible votes, he got 13,491,087. That's about 25% of eligible voters. Stop embarrassing yourself with ridiculous claims. It is only the nuances of our FPTP electoral system that enables a party to get a majority of seats with less than 50% of the votes cast. Things would look rather different if we had PR. A coalition would have easily kept the Tories out of government.

Many young people live in overcrowded homes. This why parks should not be closed. Millions of households have no gardens. Many families are housed in flats with small rooms with children sharing bedrooms. Even worse, there are around 70,000 families nationwide living in just one room! Most people are maintaining social distancing, so there must be a better way to deal with the few who aren't.

Of course it is important. Achieving it against a virus for which there is no working vaccine and of which there is evidence of mutation (from previous versions of SARS) is another matter. Epidemiologists are always looking for the next big one. COVID19 may well be it.

Most people are doing what is asked. As we all know, things are getting grim in our hospitals. It feels like two worlds. There are hundreds of COVID patients in London's main hospitals. Front line workers are working in extremely stressful and testing circumstances. So please everyone. Stay at home for them. We can fix the economy when the time comes. We can not replace lives lost. Look after those in your communities that need extra help to stay safe and let's hope we emerge from this in a better place, about what matters most in life.

Okay, the question to ask is what can a mask do to stop virus from transmitting? If you are sneezing or coughing, a mask will stop 80% of any viral material from traveling the distance required to infect another within 2 meters of you. But if you are not infected, a mask does not protect you from the virus if someone coughs on you. Front line medical staff need full PPE for a reason. A surgical mask is not enough. So if you have any cough, wear a mask. Otherwise, leave the production of protective material to providing the higher level PPE that front line staff really need.

Some of this increase may well be down to lack of opportunity elsewhere. A house burglar for example, will struggle to find an empty home. A street robber will be told to stay two meters away and given the lack of drunken victims wandering about at night, and no restaurants full of people with bags to pinch....and so on. Even the high street sportswear and brands shoplifter is struggling now. It is perhaps the only bright side of this - criminals being put out of business. Those who thieve to support drug and alcohol addictions though, will target any shop that is open.

Yes Seenbeen. The Chinese (and others) have been trying to develop a vaccine since that first outbreak and two further small outbreaks were the result of laboratory workers catching the virus. There is also a correlation between viral load and severity of symptoms in mice and rats which may explain why front line health workers are always disproportionately affected in a pandemic. But you can replicate that in a public arena if you put an uninfected person in a room full of infected people. This is also a very good reason for containing spread as quickly as possible. I do think the WHO were slow to classify a pandemic. Possibly complacent due to previous outbreaks being contained in Asia or the Middle East. Ebola too in Africa. The Chinese unpacked the genome sequence very quickly and published immediately, so there was no excuse for not understanding this virus is a SARS mutation. And just to add that the first reports of this virus emerged as small one line alerts at the very end of December. Health professionals were warning journalists at the time that this could be serious. By the end of January, those same health professionals were warning the press to watch the USA, because they were not responding as they need to and it will likely explode there. One of the most difficult things in the West has been in getting populist leaders to face the science. This posturing has absolutely cost lives. For once, the experts are right.

Amazon. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cable-Canon-4000D-2000D-PowerShot-Black/dp/B07RYMD9Y4

Even this forum has a thread for celebrity deaths does it not?

DF is off the mark on this one fishbiscuits. I repeat that it is not yet known how long any immunity lasts. With SARS CoV (1), it is just months, and it is constantly declining through those months. Now imagine, you have a pandemic that waves its way around the world. That means we could be facing an new wave of infection every few months, with little or no immunity in play. If that virus then mutates, it could be more virulent, more deadly. This is precisely what happened with Spanish Flu, which in the end had an estimated 3% fatality across the globe. In real terms that was up to 100 million deaths in just 12-18 months. Add into that the a-symptomatic superspreaders and it all becomes very dangerous. Now compare that to SARS CoV (1) with its 10% mortality rate. You can see why epidemiologists and virologists are taking the lines they are. We have the benefit of advanced medical technology, and ability to genome sequence and look directly at the proteins on the tips of those antigens. The science of zoonotic viruses and pandemics is well understood. But it is a complex science in many ways, and the challenge has been in getting a public that may not grasp the complexity, or is resistant to blindly believing what experts tell them, to understand the risks. Millions of sick and dying people would be as damaging to the global economy as these short term lock downs are going to be. But of course, there are going to be many people who won't believe what could happen, unless they see it happen. That is the frustrating part for scientists but also for governments too, who are always half thinking about the next election. One of the most dangerous part of the messaging imo has been comparisons to flu. Influenza A is the only strain of flu that is zoonotic, but developing a vaccine for that is relatively easy. Migrating birds are constantly monitored for antigenic drift in that A virus, from which each seasons flu vaccine can be made. Antigenic shift is a bigger challenge (swine flu is an example of that in play) but again, the method for vaccine is well practised. With SARS viruses, we haven't as yet found an effective vaccine protocol. COVID19 is not a flu virus. This IS different. I don't really know what more I can say to get that across.

Sorry Holloway, but the evidence is that SARS viruses do not deliver indefinite immunity (with some people being reinfected after as little as three months). So herd immunity in this way could never be achieved. This is why the race is on for effective drug treatment and/or a vaccine. Otherwise we could face wave after wave of this with mutation between waves. Clinical trials for a vaccine for MERS only began in Decemeber of last year. These SARS viruses are particularly challenging when it comes to vaccine development so far. But a lot of research has been done since 2003 so hopefully that will speed up the way to a vaccine for this pandemic.