False and misleading claims about Covid

[johnhemming]

wouldn't a quicker immune response from T cells help combat the virus sooner, thereby reducing its ability to replicate and transmit?

Although I think that is right there are separate questions as to what is likely and what we have evidence for.

We don't have any evidence that T cell immunity does not affect transmission.

However, we also don't have any evidence that it does.

(or at least I have not found any).

Now on my understanding of how the immune system works (and my degree is in Physics and I am a generalist otherwise) I would be quite surprised if T cell immunity had no effect on transmission.

Getting actual evidence (as opposed to opinion) either way is likely to be quite difficult.

As - rightly so - we cannot experiment by doing tests on people to see if they pass on infection, it is quite difficult to answer the question experimentally.

I think the best source of data will probably involve looking at the pattern of transmission in different countries and seeing if there is a link between that and T-cell sensitivity or cross reactive anti-bodies.

A relevant question, of course, is one as to what evidence there is for repeat coronavirus infection. We know that there are repeat colds and influenza, but the first question is what measurements there are on repeat coronavirus infections.

Thinking a little bit further we do know that people defeat the virus without generating antibodies and that those people then are not passing on the virus on repeated occasions or otherwise we would see areas like Lambeth kicking off again. So in that sense we do have evidence that T-cell immunity affects transmission.

However, I think it would be good to review papers on repeat coronavirus infections.

[Backache]

Are you hypothesising that the existence of memory T-cells has no impact on the ability of an individual to pass on infection?

I am stating that I have seen no evidence whatsoever that memory T cells from historical non Covid coronavirus infection protect against transmission.

Anyone can hypothesise anything they want but in terms of likelihood the bloke who was one of the first discoverers considered it scientifically unlikely.
Who knows for certain? One can hypothesise that they will join together and form a rocketship to the moon but without evidence it is speculation.

I'll admit I'm not an expert in the minutiae of how the immune system works, so perhaps you're discussing at a detail where my understanding is limited so I'm not sure whether this is relevant or not... maybe you're already aware of this and instead specifically talking about transmission(?)... though even so, wouldn't a quicker immune response from T cells help combat the virus sooner, thereby reducing its ability to replicate and transmit?

.

I probably haven't explained myself well.
The point is not whether or not previous coronavirus infections affect the immune response but whether they do so to an extent that is not taken into account by estimates of herd immunity.

Herd immunity calculations are based on estimates of transmissibility from calculations of R nought.

Other Coronavirus infections are a part of what we have been living with for years and exist in the populations from which R nought has been estimated. So the knowledge of this existence does not alter our estimate of herd immunity as the effect is observed when making the initial estimate.

[johnhemming]

The point is not whether or not previous coronavirus infections affect the immune response but whether they do so to an extent that is not taken into account by estimates of herd immunity.

The difficulty with that is that it assumes the same previous coronavirus infection levels across the world. What evidence is there for that?

I did ask about repeat coronavirus infections. Are there any papers about that that you are aware of?

[servodude]

It as if they "haven't worked" because they haven't made the virus disappear. But, if that is your criteria then nothing will "work" - apart from perhaps just wait 10, 50, 100(?) years.

Please tell us.

"What's the point in having brakes on my car? They obviously don't work! I stopped earlier and now I need to do so again??!! What!?"

-sd

[servodude]

The point is not whether or not previous coronavirus infections affect the immune response but whether they do so to an extent that is not taken into account by estimates of herd immunity.

The difficulty with that is that it assumes the same previous coronavirus infection levels across the world. What evidence is there for that?

I did ask about repeat coronavirus infections. Are there any papers about that that you are aware of?

Seen a few good papers about how places that experienced SARS COV1 developed policies and plans to react to future needs
- seen a few papers that talk about cross immunity also
- the best ones consider both
- the dishonest ones pick numbers out of the air for emphasis or start with their hoped for result
-sd

[Lootman]

It as if they "haven't worked" because they haven't made the virus disappear. But, if that is your criteria then nothing will "work" - apart from perhaps just wait 10, 50, 100(?) years.

"What's the point in having brakes on my car? They obviously don't work! I stopped earlier and now I need to do so again??!! What!?"

Totally missing the point. A better analogy is that three times you apply the brakes and the vehicle doesn't stop. And then you apply the brakes a 4th time hoping the result will be different.

[Itsallaguess]

"What's the point in having brakes on my car? They obviously don't work! I stopped earlier and now I need to do so again??!! What!?"

Totally missing the point.

A better analogy is that three times you apply the brakes and the vehicle doesn't stop. And then you apply the brakes a 4th time hoping the result will be different.

No.

A better analogy is where you're going down a steep slope in thick fog, and because it's very foggy, you don't quite know when the steep slope is going to flatten out, but even in the fog, you can see your speedometer, so you know how fast you're going...

Each time you apply the brakes, you can clearly see that you're slowing down, but because of the fog, you're not sure how many times you're going to need to apply them before you reach the end of the steep and clearly dangerous slope...

When you do eventually reach the end of the steep slope, you're glad that you applied the brakes as often as you did, because if you'd not done so and simply carried on getting faster and faster into the thick fog, whilst travelling down a steep slope of indeterminate length and safety, it's highly likely that a catastrophic accident would have happened as you reached terminal velocity....

March 15th 2020 -

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci said Sunday that it was better to err on the side of caution in coronavirus mitigation, even if the steps taken appear to be an overreaction.

“If you just leave the virus to its own devices, it will go way up like we've seen in Italy. That's not going to happen if we do what we're attempting to do and are doing,” Fauci told CBS’s Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation.”

“The way you get ahead of it is that, as I try to explain to people, that I want people to assume that ... we are overreacting because if it looks like you're overreacting, you're probably doing the right thing,” he added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/487639-fauci-if-it-looks-like-youre-overreacting-youre-probably-doing-the

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Lootman]

"What's the point in having brakes on my car? They obviously don't work! I stopped earlier and now I need to do so again??!! What!?"

Totally missing the point.

A better analogy is that three times you apply the brakes and the vehicle doesn't stop. And then you apply the brakes a 4th time hoping the result will be different.

A better analogy is where you're going down a steep slope in thick fog, and because it's very foggy, you don't quite know when the steep slope is going to flatten out, but even in the fog, you can see your speedometer, so you know how fast you're going...

Each time you apply the brakes, you can clearly see that you're slowing down, but because of the fog, you're not sure how many times you're going to need to apply them before you reach the end of the steep slope...

When you do eventually reach the end of the steep slope, you're glad that you applied the brakes as often as you did, because if you'd not done so and simply carried on getting faster and faster into the fog, whilst travelling down a steep slope of indeterminate length and safety, it's likely that a catastrophic accident would have happened as you reached terminal velocity....

Well, I never said that lockdowns are a total failure. I think they can achieve some worthwhile benefits when they are targeted. So for instance the idea that the over 50s are locked down (or at least self-isolated) whilst the younger folks go about their business has merit to it. I also liked the idea of local lockdowns and the tier system, which should have been given more time in my view.

But some people here and elsewhere trumpet lockdowns like they are the indisputable remedy for this situation and the UK experience doesn't really show that. I suspect that the simple expedient of wearing masks everywhere is more effective, including outside. And by masks I mean N95 and N99 masks rather than those loose, floppy, disposable ones that people seem to like because they are cheap.

But yes, there are two camps here - those who truly believe in long, strict lockdowns and those who see them more as temporary and tactical devices. I am in the latter camp and feel that we have gone too far. But with a bit of luck the vaccine will bail us out - but for that I think we'd be seeing widespread civil disobedience against the lockdown right now.

[Itsallaguess]

But some people here and elsewhere trumpet lockdowns like they are the indisputable remedy for this situation and the UK experience doesn't really show that.

I'm really not sure that anyone at all has ever thought that lockdowns are 'the indisputable remedy' for this situation...

Lockdowns simply allow us to play for time whilst the real 'indisputable remedy' is worked up in the form of vaccines...

Perhaps it's your misunderstanding on that point that's causing you to see lockdowns in the negative light that you are, do you think?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Mike4]

Totally missing the point. A better analogy is that three times you apply the brakes and the vehicle doesn't stop. And then you apply the brakes a 4th time hoping the result will be different.

My turn for a go...

A better analogy than this is the first time you applied the brakes you waited until it was blindingly obvious you were about to hit something, so you had to stamp on them far harder than had you used them when you first saw the hazard.

Second time nothing happened because although you put your foot on the brake pedal, you didn't press it.

Third time you also left it far too late hoping the hazard would just go away and save you the trouble of braking. But it didn't and then another, bigger hazard came into view so you had to brake really hard. Now in mid-skid, it isn't looking good. If only we pressed brake pedal in a timely manner instead of needing another emergency stop.

I fixed a boiler today for an ICU doctor in a London hospital. He said be skeptical about what you see on the news and hospitals being over-run with COVID patients. Its all rubbish, things are worse than they ever show or say. People are dying from lack of medical care caused by lack of skilled manpower.

[Lootman]

But some people here and elsewhere trumpet lockdowns like they are the indisputable remedy for this situation and the UK experience doesn't really show that.

I'm really not sure that anyone at all has ever thought that lockdowns are 'the indisputable remedy' for this situation.

Lockdowns simply allow us to play for time whilst the real 'indisputable remedy' is worked up in the form of vaccines...

Perhaps it's your misunderstanding on that point that's causing you to see lockdowns in the negative light that you are, do you think?

Maybe but I still think that different people can assess the effectiveness of lockdowns differently, depending on what their criteria and risk factors are.

I spoke to my son in London today. He has a female friend visiting him from Bath this week-end. I said to him "She should not be doing that". He agreed and said he told her the exact same thing.

To which she replied: "It's OK, nobody stopped me".

That might be what we are dealing with here!

[servodude]

Totally missing the point. A better analogy is that three times you apply the brakes and the vehicle doesn't stop. And then you apply the brakes a 4th time hoping the result will be different.

My turn for a go...

A better analogy than this is the first time you applied the brakes you waited until it was blindingly obvious you were about to hit something, so you had to stamp on them far harder than had you used them when you first saw the hazard.

Second time nothing happened because although you put your foot on the brake pedal, you didn't press it.

Third time you also left it far too late hoping the hazard would just go away and save you the trouble of braking. But it didn't and then another, bigger hazard came into view so you had to brake really hard. Now in mid-skid, it isn't looking good. If only we pressed brake pedal in a timely manner instead of needing another emergency stop.

I fixed a boiler today for an ICU doctor in a London hospital. He said be skeptical about what you see on the news and hospitals being over-run with COVID patients. Its all rubbish, things are worse than they ever show or say. People are dying from lack of medical care caused by lack of skilled manpower.

I hope they don't let him drive
Especially if his brakes don't slow his car
-sd

[Itsallaguess]

But some people here and elsewhere trumpet lockdowns like they are the indisputable remedy for this situation and the UK experience doesn't really show that.

I'm really not sure that anyone at all has ever thought that lockdowns are 'the indisputable remedy' for this situation.

Lockdowns simply allow us to play for time whilst the real 'indisputable remedy' is worked up in the form of vaccines...

Perhaps it's your misunderstanding on that point that's causing you to see lockdowns in the negative light that you are, do you think?

Maybe but I still think that different people can assess the effectiveness of lockdowns differently, depending on what their criteria and risk factors are.

I spoke to my son in London today. He has a female friend visiting him from Bath this week-end. I said to him "She should not be doing that". He agreed and said he told her the exact same thing.

To which she replied: "It's OK, nobody stopped me".

That might be what we are dealing with here!

Well, on that particular point Lootman, I will 100% agree with you, and having found some common ground at this late (for me!) hour, I will bid you Good Night...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[XFool]

It as if they "haven't worked" because they haven't made the virus disappear. But, if that is your criteria then nothing will "work" - apart from perhaps just wait 10, 50, 100(?) years.

"What's the point in having brakes on my car? They obviously don't work! I stopped earlier and now I need to do so again??!! What!?"

Totally missing the point. A better analogy is that three times you apply the brakes and the vehicle doesn't stop. And then you apply the brakes a 4th time hoping the result will be different.

Totalling missing the point. I apply the brakes of my car all the time when I'm driving - haven't killed anyone yet. Should I give up bothering?

Have you seen this? https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=377952#p377952

[servodude]

"What's the point in having brakes on my car? They obviously don't work! I stopped earlier and now I need to do so again??!! What!?"

Totally missing the point. A better analogy is that three times you apply the brakes and the vehicle doesn't stop. And then you apply the brakes a 4th time hoping the result will be different.

Totalling missing the point. I apply the brakes of my car all the time when I'm driving - haven't killed anyone yet. Should I give up bothering?

Have you seen this? https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=377952#p377952

Right that's it!
I'm going to find a pub, pull over and wait till they've finished building the road.

-sd

[Backache]

The point is not whether or not previous coronavirus infections affect the immune response but whether they do so to an extent that is not taken into account by estimates of herd immunity.

The difficulty with that is that it assumes the same previous coronavirus infection levels across the world. What evidence is there for that?

I did ask about repeat coronavirus infections. Are there any papers about that that you are aware of?

Coronavirus infections are longstanding. I have no idea if the distribution is even or slightly skewed.
Probably fairly even.
However if they are not, to demonstrate that they will significantly decrease the herd immunity threshold here you have to demonstrate that they are unevenly distributed, that they are skewed towards an increase in distribution in the UK and that they have a significant effect on transmission.
Not a single one of these have been demonstrated so the overwhelming likelihood is that there is no reduction in the estimated herd immunity threshold.
It is not impossible , just improbable.

[servodude]

The point is not whether or not previous coronavirus infections affect the immune response but whether they do so to an extent that is not taken into account by estimates of herd immunity.

The difficulty with that is that it assumes the same previous coronavirus infection levels across the world. What evidence is there for that?

I did ask about repeat coronavirus infections. Are there any papers about that that you are aware of?

Coronavirus infections are longstanding. I have no idea if the distribution is even or slightly skewed.
Probably fairly even.
However if they are not, to demonstrate that they will significantly decrease the herd immunity threshold here you have to demonstrate that they are unevenly distributed, that they are skewed towards an increase in distribution in the UK and that they have a significant effect on transmission.
Not a single one of these have been demonstrated so the overwhelming likelihood is that there is no reduction in the estimated herd immunity threshold.
It is not impossible, just improbable.

There has been a correlation between SARS-COV1 exposure and SARS-COV2 immunity
- this is really good news for a vaccine (if you can stop this one before it mutates sufficiently)
- but we can be pretty sure, by the absence of dead people at the time that SARS COV1 didn't make it to the UK (it was quite a bit more deadly than this virus)

we also know that it did not make it very far in the populations where it broke out
and that those areas did take steps to be ready for future outbreaks as a result

Taiwan especially https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971204001766
- I'm sure that they would be pleased to know that someone in the UK might be attributing their success in this current pandemic to having been sufficiently ineffective in the previous one

beware conflation
- sd

[johnhemming]

The point is not whether or not previous coronavirus infections affect the immune response but whether they do so to an extent that is not taken into account by estimates of herd immunity.

The difficulty with that is that it assumes the same previous coronavirus infection levels across the world. What evidence is there for that?

I did ask about repeat coronavirus infections. Are there any papers about that that you are aware of?

Coronavirus infections are longstanding. I have no idea if the distribution is even or slightly skewed.
Probably fairly even.
However if they are not, to demonstrate that they will significantly decrease the herd immunity threshold here you have to demonstrate that they are unevenly distributed, that they are skewed towards an increase in distribution in the UK and that they have a significant effect on transmission.
Not a single one of these have been demonstrated so the overwhelming likelihood is that there is no reduction in the estimated herd immunity threshold.
It is not impossible , just improbable.

And the fact that we get recurrent coronavirus infections ..

I wonder if you can point me to any papers about coronavirus infections recurring in the same person. I accept that there are coronavirus infections that recur. It would be helpful to have papers on that as well.

The difficulty is that lots of things actually affect the herd immunity threshold. The various restrictions imposed by the government affect it.

I would assume that it would be generally agreed that requiring whole households to mainly remain at home substantially sitting in a sitting room with artificially heated air with a low relative humidity means that transmission within the household is increased.

I think we would probably also agree that closing schools (which I am unhappy about more generally) will result in fewer transmissions between households.

The big question is whether closing pubs and restaurants and making every household send people to a supermarket (daily or less frequently) results in an increase in transmission or a reduction. We still don't know how long the virus can hang around in the air for and still infect people we know it lasts at least 5 minutes. At a speed of 3mph (using 1 1/3 metres per second which is slightly lower) and a distance of 2 metres between people 200 people can pass through a cloud of virus in 5 minutes. Potentially concentrating people into smaller areas makes it easier for the virus to pass between people.

We then ask whether the step of implementing lockdown per se (not the other restrictions) increases transmission and thereby increases the herd immunity threshold or reduces it.

We have the conincidence of the November lockdown and the kicking off of infections in areas which previously had not kicked off and in fact in Cornwall we can see this for this lockdown. Christmas obviously will have some effect as well.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details ... on%20Trust

Similarly with crossreactive immunity (be it t-cell or antibody) it will affect the levels of susceptibility. How it affects the herd immunity threshold is in fact quite complex. In many ways we can really only go on studying the patterns of infection and identify for those areas that have hit herd immunity what level of infection that is.

In the end I would assume that the objective for vaccination would be to vaccinate as many adults as possible.

Hence we have a lot of questions where although we can identify the direction of travel in some (although others may be going in the opposite way) we have to come to conclusions by comparing real world situations such as those in different areas and different jurisdictions.

EDIT: I have had another look at Cornwall (which of course is more rural than most) and in fact the people admitted to hospital on the day of peak admissions for each three occasions were infected during a compulsory stay at home period (lockdown). (using a 14 day delay)

Hence the correlation in Cornwall between lockdown and peak hospital admissions is 100%.

[Arborbridge]

I'm interested in what happened to Cornwall towards the end of the year. I've seen it mentioned that the infection rate increased coincidentally or not with the November lockdown, and I certainly noticed Cornwall turning "dark" on the chart. What's special about Cornwall, I wonder, at this time? Cornwall and the Isle of White had been amongst the lowest areas up until recently, then quite quickly both deteriorated - despite neither being close to the eastward march of the new variant.

Cornwall was particularly curious since one would think it fairly isolated whilst Devon did not increase in parallel as one might expect. Could there be an undue impact from second homes? -

Here I have charted the Government published weekly numbers of new cases (seven day average) per 100k:-



You can see that the number of cases started to reduce after the four week lockdown (black line) started to bite. Then as there was a relaxation the number of cases rose, also confusingly around the time that the second variant started. Cornwall went bananas before and over Christmas and infections accelerated compared with neighbouring Devon. This coincided with family visiting and possibly second home inhabiting with folk wanting to get away from the worst infected areas. Of course, this can only be a supposition, but one has heard anecdotes from locals who knew that unoccupied holidays homes were now being used. But if so, why was Devon not equally affected? One would need to be able to drill down into the movement of people to find out if there is a possible explanation here, but it seems something other than a pure lockdown effect was happening.
In summary: numbers fell in lockdown, then increased dramatically after lockdown and particularly at Christmas. In conclusion, from these particularly figures, there is nothing to support the view that lockdown did not work in Cornwall, in fact rather the opposite.

Arb.

[XFool]

I'm interested in what happened to Cornwall towards the end of the year. I've seen it mentioned that the infection rate increased coincidentally or not with the November lockdown, and I certainly noticed Cornwall turning "dark" on the chart. What's special about Cornwall, I wonder, at this time? Cornwall and the Isle of White had been amongst the lowest areas up until recently, then quite quickly both deteriorated - despite neither being close to the eastward march of the new variant.

I don't know about Cornwall, but have you read the following article about the IoW?

Why was the Isle of Wight left so vulnerable to Covid catastrophe?
Hannah Ewens

The Guardian

Our island has an ageing population and one small hospital. Allowing people to travel from tier 4 areas has had tragic results