Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[look]

I suggest that Xfool only give his opinion after reading carefully all the studies in the link.

About what?

nac

[johnhemming]

Vrdiver, i am using tablets of vit. d3. But some people say the vit made by the body is better.

I don't think there is any difference. Where there is a factor is as the body converts Vitamin D 3 (cholecalciferol) to 25-hydroxycholecalciferol (calcifediol) which is how it is stored before being used to create a hormone.

That takes some processing. However, it is the same processing either way, but one way the body gets a load of D3 the other way is more gradual. I don't think it matters as long as you take your (ideally capsules of) vitamin d in the morning.

[vrdiver]

Vrdiver, i am using tablets of vit. d3. But some people say the vit made by the body is better.

Please don't forget the nac (n acetil cisteine)

There are many studies about the use for the combat against covid. Don'1 expect that some day somebody will pay all the work to get the support of the regulators. It's too cheap for that.

If you don't know what to do in this weekend i suggest you to read this studies all made by professionals.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=e ... vid&oq=nac

For most vitamins, minerals etc. I'd agree with you that those ingested "naturally" via food are better than those administered in tablet form as supplements, since there are usually co-compounds or evolutionary expectations of how the desired molecule will arrive (e.g. with food, in fat etc etc). I talked about this with my doctor several years ago and she was of the opinion that a balanced diet is the best approach, but when that's not possible, supplements are better than nothing.

In the case of vitamin D (D3) there are confounding factors. D3's precursor is manufactured in the skin in the presence of UVB, which has the side effect of tanning and can lead to a higher incidence of cancer when exposed repeatedly. In the UK, with our climate, for most months of the year people will have their torso, legs and possibly arms covered when outside, which limits total UVB exposure. Unless outside between 11am and 3pm the UVB available is unlikely to provide enough D3 anyway. Add to that that in the hottest months in the UK, we are advised to wear sunscreen, so blocking UVB absorption (as demonstrated by the reduction in tanning). This all leads to a permanent under-supply of vitamin D3 in the UK population, regardless of skin characteristics.

Given that UVB is best avoided, then deliberately applying it (either from a tanning studio or from a lamp for the purposes of promoting D3 production) brings unwelcome side effects (premature skin aging if UVA is present, increased risk of cancer from UVA and UVB) which can be avoided with the D3 supplement in tablet form.

You have to decide for yourself the risk/benefit trade-off.

Re the nac - your papers suggest it is useful for managing a cytokine storm, which is a possible outcome of full blown Covid, but not that nac will prevent an individual from catching Covid in the first place (forgive me if I missed that point as I was skim-reading a few of them rather than studying in detail). Nac would appear to be a hospital treatment rather than a self-medicated preventative one?

And to end on a somewhat frivolous note, when you mentioned "don't forget the nac", my first thought was "My Sharona", so thank you for reminding me of a great song!

VRD

[look]

Vrdiver, i am using tablets of vit. d3. But some people say the vit made by the body is better.

Please don't forget the nac (n acetil cisteine)

There are many studies about the use for the combat against covid. Don'1 expect that some day somebody will pay all the work to get the support of the regulators. It's too cheap for that.

If you don't know what to do in this weekend i suggest you to read this studies all made by professionals.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=e ... vid&oq=nac

For most vitamins, minerals etc. I'd agree with you that those ingested "naturally" via food are better than those administered in tablet form as supplements, since there are usually co-compounds or evolutionary expectations of how the desired molecule will arrive (e.g. with food, in fat etc etc). I talked about this with my doctor several years ago and she was of the opinion that a balanced diet is the best approach, but when that's not possible, supplements are better than nothing.

In the case of vitamin D (D3) there are confounding factors. D3's precursor is manufactured in the skin in the presence of UVB, which has the side effect of tanning and can lead to a higher incidence of cancer when exposed repeatedly. In the UK, with our climate, for most months of the year people will have their torso, legs and possibly arms covered when outside, which limits total UVB exposure. Unless outside between 11am and 3pm the UVB available is unlikely to provide enough D3 anyway. Add to that that in the hottest months in the UK, we are advised to wear sunscreen, so blocking UVB absorption (as demonstrated by the reduction in tanning). This all leads to a permanent under-supply of vitamin D3 in the UK population, regardless of skin characteristics.

Given that UVB is best avoided, then deliberately applying it (either from a tanning studio or from a lamp for the purposes of promoting D3 production) brings unwelcome side effects (premature skin aging if UVA is present, increased risk of cancer from UVA and UVB) which can be avoided with the D3 supplement in tablet form.

You have to decide for yourself the risk/benefit trade-off.

Re the nac - your papers suggest it is useful for managing a cytokine storm, which is a possible outcome of full blown Covid, but not that nac will prevent an individual from catching Covid in the first place (forgive me if I missed that point as I was skim-reading a few of them rather than studying in detail). Nac would appear to be a hospital treatment rather than a self-medicated preventative one?

And to end on a somewhat frivolous note, when you mentioned "don't forget the nac", my first thought was "My Sharona", so thank you for reminding me of a great song!

VRD

Thank you for your answer.

Perhaps i should not mix the two issues: vit d3 and nac.

The suggestion of reading the nac studies was for all.

The studies that i read were made in hospitals. It seems the authors were thinking only in hospital treatment. They used high Ibtravenous dosis.

I think that the earlier the better. So i think it should be used at home too. I think it will help to prevent or reduce the citokine storm if used before it begin. The only problem is the efect on the stomach. I read it's not good for they who have stomach toubles. In my town there are only dosis of 600 mg. After I read that in UK it's sold in dosis of 200 mg, i decided to let made in dosis of 200 mg in those special pharmacies, i don't know the world you use in UK.

I use it also for head problems.

[Lootman]

Apparently the government is considering mandatory hotel quarantine for people arriving in the UK. It is not clear yet whether this will be only for people arriving from high-risk countries, only non-British people, or everyone. Apparently some "experts" think it should be everyone.

But how on earth would that work? I can see it for a small airport somewhere. But Heathrow? Even though its passenger numbers are down 75%, there are still about 50,000 people a day flying in and out. Now a good number of those are either departing or are in transit. But even so you might figure 20,000 arrivals a day.

Assuming quarantine is for 10 days then 200,000 hotel rooms will be required. There are a lot of hotels on the Bath Road, and a few sprinkled about elsewhere in the area, but nowhere near that number. And of course there are flight crew and departing passengers who need to stay in them too.

Again, how would people be compelled to stay in these hotels? Will they be escorted through baggage claim and customs, and then herded onto prison buses to hotels with a 24 hour security perimeter? With people not allowed outside even for fresh air and exercise? How many thousands of security staff would be needed? It is almost Kafkaesque.

I cannot be the only person who think this is a totally impractical idea, even if I agreed it had benefits.

[Mike4]

Apparently the government is considering mandatory hotel quarantine for people arriving in the UK. It is not clear yet whether this will be only for people arriving from high-risk countries, only non-British people, or everyone. Apparently some "experts" think it should be everyone.

But how on earth would that work? I can see it for a small airport somewhere. But Heathrow? Even though its passenger numbers are down 75%, there are still about 50,000 people a day flying in and out.

I can imagine this working really well by making 49,000 people a day decide not to come here as they don't want to spend 14 days in a cheap English hotel.

[Julian]

Apparently the government is considering mandatory hotel quarantine for people arriving in the UK. It is not clear yet whether this will be only for people arriving from high-risk countries, only non-British people, or everyone. Apparently some "experts" think it should be everyone.

But how on earth would that work? I can see it for a small airport somewhere. But Heathrow? Even though its passenger numbers are down 75%, there are still about 50,000 people a day flying in and out. Now a good number of those are either departing or are in transit. But even so you might figure 20,000 arrivals a day.

Assuming quarantine is for 10 days then 200,000 hotel rooms will be required. There are a lot of hotels on the Bath Road, and a few sprinkled about elsewhere in the area, but nowhere near that number. And of course there are flight crew and departing passengers who need to stay in them too.

Again, how would people be compelled to stay in these hotels? Will they be escorted through baggage claim and customs, and then herded onto prison buses to hotels with a 24 hour security perimeter? With people not allowed outside even for fresh air and exercise? How many thousands of security staff would be needed? It is almost Kafkaesque.

I cannot be the only person who think this is a totally impractical idea, even if I agreed it had benefits.

I would have thought that one of the assumptions is that with such restrictions in place the number of passengers wanting to enter the UK will decrease significantly even from that ~50,000 a day figure we have at the moment.

On another point I did hear a report on the news today that did explicitly mention buses to take arriving passengers directly from the airport to their quarantine hotel presumably without ever being allowed to go landside. If entire hotels are designated as quarantine facilities (which I assume they would be, would anyone else really want to stay in such a hotel?) then I would have thought that most hotels' current levels of reception staff and basic security would be sufficient. Fire doors would be an issue since they can't be closed off for safety reasons but if not there already alarms and/or CCTV would pretty quickly pick up anyone who tried to exit a hotel via one of those.

Even if those measures were to be put in place transfer passengers could still potentially pose a risk even if they never go landside albeit a significantly lesser one. Despite Australia's very rigorous hotel quarantine procedures I believe that they had an issue when a cleaner (or was it two?) in one of the quarantine hotels carried the virus into the community. I can see the same potential issue with transfer passengers where an airside worker in a terminal might carry an infection landside but if such quarantine measures are put in place then I suspect transfer passenger numbers might drop significantly as well.

- Julian

[Arborbridge]

The idea has a little madness about it and doesn't sound do-able. I just do not believe there are enough rooms available. Maybe there will be prison hulks anchored in the Thames and Portsmouth Harbour as in Napoleonic times.

If it's true that it will apply to everyone, it will certain kill the holiday trade. For example, I have a 7 day cruise booked at the moment, and would then be looking at having to pay extra for a 10 day isolation when I get home - that sounds rather unenticing as holiday plan

Arb.

[PinkDalek]

... I just do not believe there are enough rooms available. ...

Logistically difficult, yes, but when I last looked there were about 150,000 hotel rooms in Greater London alone. I've no idea how many are empty but would imagine there's (a) room for you!

For example, I have a 7 day cruise booked at the moment, and would then be looking at having to pay extra for a 10 day isolation when I get home - that sounds rather unenticing as holiday plan

Indeed!

[Lootman]

I can imagine this working really well by making 49,000 people a day decide not to come here as they don't want to spend 14 days in a cheap English hotel.

I would have thought that one of the assumptions is that with such restrictions in place the number of passengers wanting to enter the UK will decrease significantly even from that ~50,000 a day figure we have at the moment.

If that were the aim then they should stop flights coming in, at least from any country deemed risky. We were somewhere like that in April 2020.

And in the version being discussed where everyone is quarantined, this would include returning British nationals. So instead of being allowed to go home and quarantine there, you get banished to a Marriott on the A4 for 10 days?

That is an interesting idea of an airside transfer direct to the hotel. But it would have to be post-Customs and I just do not see where the real estate is to corral large numbers of people there, at least not with social distancing.

And as you note there is still a risk from transit passengers and airside terminal workers.

[Mike4]

I can imagine this working really well by making 49,000 people a day decide not to come here as they don't want to spend 14 days in a cheap English hotel.

I would have thought that one of the assumptions is that with such restrictions in place the number of passengers wanting to enter the UK will decrease significantly even from that ~50,000 a day figure we have at the moment.

If that were the aim then they should stop flights coming in, at least from any country deemed risky. We were somewhere like that in April 2020.

And in the version being discussed where everyone is quarantined, this would include returning British nationals. So instead of being allowed to go home and quarantine there, you get banished to a Marriott on the A4 for 10 days?

That is an interesting idea of an airside transfer direct to the hotel. But it would have to be post-Customs and I just do not see where the real estate is to corral large numbers of people there, at least not with social distancing.

And as you note there is still a risk from transit passengers and airside terminal workers.

No measure is 100% perfect including this one. But from a virus-controlling POV, this is one helluvalot better than allowing 50,000 incoming traveller a day to disperse into the general population like polystyrene beads in the wind.

[dealtn]

I can imagine this working really well by making 49,000 people a day decide not to come here as they don't want to spend 14 days in a cheap English hotel.

I would have thought that one of the assumptions is that with such restrictions in place the number of passengers wanting to enter the UK will decrease significantly even from that ~50,000 a day figure we have at the moment.

If that were the aim then they should stop flights coming in, at least from any country deemed risky. We were somewhere like that in April 2020.

And in the version being discussed where everyone is quarantined, this would include returning British nationals. So instead of being allowed to go home and quarantine there, you get banished to a Marriott on the A4 for 10 days?

That is an interesting idea of an airside transfer direct to the hotel. But it would have to be post-Customs and I just do not see where the real estate is to corral large numbers of people there, at least not with social distancing.

And as you note there is still a risk from transit passengers and airside terminal workers.

No measure is 100% perfect including this one. But from a virus-controlling POV, this is one helluvalot better than allowing 50,000 incoming traveller a day to disperse into the general population like polystyrene beads in the wind.

Possibly. Does it not also stop 50,000 people leaving and therefore potentially now spreading the virus in the UK, rather than in foreign countries?

[Bubblesofearth]

No measure is 100% perfect including this one. But from a virus-controlling POV, this is one helluvalot better than allowing 50,000 incoming traveller a day to disperse into the general population like polystyrene beads in the wind.

No one should be flying just now, not while there are new variants of the virus popping up all over.

Seriously, why does anyone actually have to fly? Will they die if they don't?

BoE

[Lootman]

If that were the aim then they should stop flights coming in, at least from any country deemed risky. We were somewhere like that in April 2020.

And in the version being discussed where everyone is quarantined, this would include returning British nationals. So instead of being allowed to go home and quarantine there, you get banished to a Marriott on the A4 for 10 days?

That is an interesting idea of an airside transfer direct to the hotel. But it would have to be post-Customs and I just do not see where the real estate is to corral large numbers of people there, at least not with social distancing.

And as you note there is still a risk from transit passengers and airside terminal workers.

No measure is 100% perfect including this one. But from a virus-controlling POV, this is one helluvalot better than allowing 50,000 incoming traveller a day to disperse into the general population like polystyrene beads in the wind.

Possibly. Does it not also stop 50,000 people leaving and therefore potentially now spreading the virus in the UK, rather than in foreign countries?

That is certainly another way of looking at it.

Moreover, the arriving passengers will have all been tested negative within 72 hours of departure, and so pose less risk to the UK than an average sample of 50,000 people whom you might meet in your local supermarket.

A negative test, or proof of vaccination, should bypass the need for at least enforced quarantine.

[Arborbridge]

50,000 a day for 14 days = 700,000 hotel rooms.

That's a big boost to the hotel industry. Are there that many free rooms?

Arb.

[Mike4]

Possibly. Does it not also stop 50,000 people leaving and therefore potentially now spreading the virus in the UK, rather than in foreign countries?

Are there restrictions on people leaving too then?

One of the most basic things learned about pandemics over the centuries is they are accelerated by people travelling about. To stop a pandemic, you have to stop the travelling. There are all manner of reasons not to try as Looty constantly comes up with, but the basic fact remains the virus did not get here by walking across, it came in an aeroplane.

And we are now trying to stop the South African mutation getting here as the scientists seem to think it is particularly dangerous and curiously, our government seems to be listening.

[Lootman]

No one should be flying just now, not while there are new variants of the virus popping up all over.

Seriously, why does anyone actually have to fly? Will they die if they don't?

Only essential travel is allowed at the moment anyway. There are various groups who are exempted from the restrictions and allowed to fly (or take a ferry or a Eurostar).

50,000 a day for 14 days = 700,000 hotel rooms.

That's a big boost to the hotel industry. Are there that many free rooms? .

Quarantine has been reduced to 10 days, so that should read 500,000 hotel rooms. A second test after 5 days currently allows it to end.

There are probably that number if all hotels are open AND the plan is to bus people to locations further away from the airport.

PD suggested the large supply of hotel rooms in central London. That is also possible although the price might rule some out. The plan is that the poor traveller has to pay for this, rather than the government.

[Itsallaguess]

The plan is that the poor traveller has to pay for this...

Surely the plan is to put the 'poor traveller' off travelling in the first place...

Surely the primary aim here is not to 'restrict', but to 'deter', and it's only when you're not suitably deterred that you'll subsequently be restricted...

It sounds like a good plan..

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Lootman]

The plan is that the poor traveller has to pay for this...

Surely the plan is to put the 'poor traveller' off travelling in the first place...

Surely the primary aim here is not to 'restrict', but to 'deter', and it's only when you're not suitably deterred that you'll subsequently be restricted...

It sounds like a good plan..

Looks like you got your way. The Guardian reports:

"The UK will announce on Tuesday enforced quarantine for travellers arriving in the country from abroad, the broadcaster ITV reported, after prime minister Boris Johnson said that new coronavirus variants were prompting a review of border policy.

“Hotel chains tell us they expect govt to announce enforced quarantine for those arriving in UK tomorrow. They are already preparing following discussions. People would quarantine for 10 days under security with all meals in rooms - price upwards of 1,500 pounds,” ITV’s UK Editor Paul Brand said on Twitter.

Decision still to be signed off at meeting of ministers tomorrow but several government sources say disagreement is only over the detail. General policy looks pretty nailed on.”

[Itsallaguess]

Decision still to be signed off at meeting of ministers tomorrow but several government sources say disagreement is only over the detail.

General policy looks pretty nailed on.

Given that Easyjet and IAG both dropped around 7% almost on opening this morning, I think this was fairly well flagged over the weekend...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess