XFool wrote:look wrote:I suggest that Xfool only give his opinion after reading carefully all the studies in the link.
About what?
nac
Thanks to gpadsa,Steffers0,lansdown,Wasron,jfgw, for Donating to support the site
XFool wrote:look wrote:I suggest that Xfool only give his opinion after reading carefully all the studies in the link.
About what?
look wrote:Vrdiver, i am using tablets of vit. d3. But some people say the vit made by the body is better.
look wrote: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
vrdiver wrote:look wrote: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
Lootman wrote: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.
Lootman wrote: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.
Arborbridge wrote: ... I just do not believe there are enough rooms available. ...
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
Mike4 wrote: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 wrote: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.
Lootman wrote:Mike4 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:Lootman wrote:Mike4 wrote: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 wrote: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.
Mike4 wrote:
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 wrote:Mike4 wrote:Lootman wrote: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?
dealtn wrote: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 wrote: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?
Arborbridge wrote: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? .
Lootman wrote:
The plan is that the poor traveller has to pay for this...
Itsallaguess wrote:Lootman wrote: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..
Lootman wrote:
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.
Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests