Coronavirus - worldwide spread and control

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jonathan Edwards said:
It has to mean 'no more than 1000 may do the trick', which means that you don't need more than 1000. More than 1000 is excluded from the threshold.
Click to expand...
But a threshold is defined as the minimum strength you need to excert the effect. This minimum strength is therefore part of all other strengths that can excert the effect.

Below a threshold there is no effect.

Or there is no threshold at all.



This would mean that "as few as" answers to the expectation that there would be more needed. "No", it says, "you don´t need that much, only a few thousands are sufficient to excert the effect."

And then Bromage elaborates that this can happen in this or that way, at once ore gradually. This might implicate that the most particles fail to enter a cell, and this may go along a theory of children, that they carry basically the same virus load, but neverhteless don´t seem to be that contagious - if so -, and the explanation would rather be that they need more particles to get infected.

This would also mean that the theory of @Keela Too is wrong, a pitty, I think, as it sounds very logical to me. Her theory also has the particular advantage in the current situation that it would go along with the theory and observation of a background immunity from other coronaviruses, which could be one explanation - along other explanations, rather, I would think - of different sceneries seen in Europe (so Italy, Spain, the UK wouldn´t happen to have that much background immunity).
 
Last edited:
A thousand viruses is a tiny amount. For example:
If a person is sick, the droplets in a single cough may contain as many as two hundred million individual virus particles.
Click to expand...
https://www.livescience.com/3686-gross-science-cough-sneeze.html

So I think trying to make arguments based on whether 1000 viruses is an important cut off point in infection may be missing the point. If we are within a couple of metres of an infected person, especially in an enclosed space, and they cough or sneeze, or even speak or sing, we would, I think, have a high probability of breathing in many thousands of virus particles.
 
Trish said:
So I think trying to make arguments based on whether 1000 viruses is an important cut off point in infection may be missing the point.
Click to expand...

I agree. I rather suspect virus numbers are a bit like the R value. Mathematically minded people think these numbers are useful for building theories but in reality they are subject to so many undefined variables they turn out to be as useful as a sieve for catching syrup.
 
spinoza577 said:
This would also mean that the theory of @Keela Too is wrong,
Click to expand...

LOL... wouldn’t be the first time. It is always worth talking ideas through and working out which of the many ideas might fit best with what we know.

However, I did think further on the idea of a doubling time for the virus being important, and so I realised that the first cycles of doubling would happen INSIDE the first infected cell, so the slow increase part of the early replications would be hidden from the immune system. Once that cell bursts and releases it’s load then the situation would surely be as if the body had had a huge inoculation in the first place. So that idea fails.

Much more credible is @Wonko’s idea regarding the probability of any viral particle succeeding in infecting that first host cell. That idea would mean that there is a chance an individual could be infected by an encounter with only 1 viral particle (although the probability might be low), and at the other extreme some individuals could be fortunate and encounter many viral particles yet not become infected (and the probability of that would also be low).

More information is needed, but I imagine these things would be difficult to research experimentally.
 
Woolie said:
Yes, what he means is that if we apply containment measures "then we won't be able to keep the problem secret". There's a good dose of paternalism there - pretend all is okay, people won't get scared. Lots of people will die, but mercifully, those who live will not have to go through the horror of being scared.

This whole COVID saga strongly highlights the narrative that we have been creating as a society about human psychological fragility. We are increasingly framing ourselves as fragile creatures who, if exposed to any sort of unpleasantness at all, will likely develop some terrible chronic disease or worse. Its increasingly hard to recognise our species in these descriptions - isn't that one that survived centuries of wars, famines, natural disasters, and countless other unpheavals with apparently enough able-bodied (and sane) members each time to pick up the pieces?

Is not that I don't believe that people should be educated about mental health, or that we shouldn't try to identify those especially at risk of mental health problems. Its just the way that these conclusions are extended to the general population. And the way in which mental health risks are overblown, and given greater weight than physical health - with absurd conclusions, like these here.
Click to expand...

The following opinion piece on the Guardian website is very much along the lines of what you were saying here @Woolie (you could have written it yourself!). It’s refreshing to see that the article is actually written by a behavioural scientist on the SAGE committee! :thumbup:

Transparency is key in a crisis - so why isn't the British government being straight with us?
Stephen Reicher

Contrary to popular belief, people rarely panic in dangerous situations. Withholding information is patronising and counter-productive
Click to expand...


You might assume that during a time of crisis it’s important for governments to hold information close to their chest. Surely, in the midst of a life and death struggle, the priority is to be pragmatic and effective. In such circumstances, openness is simply a luxury we can’t afford.

But openness is not a luxury, or an abstract principle to be set against more pressing needs. In fact, it’s a crucial component in the struggle to defeat illness. For a number of reasons, this is rarely appreciated by governments.

The most fundamental of these reasons has to do with an elitist conception of human psychology. There is a longstanding view, dating back to the dawn of industrialisation and formation of mass society, that people are psychologically fragile. Their reasoning is beset by bias. They can’t comprehend complexity. They can’t deal with uncertainty. They certainly can’t cope with threat. So in a crisis, they fold. They react excessively, irrationally, dysfunctionally. And their reactions create as many problems, if not more, than the original crisis itself. This view is encapsulated by a scene common to Hollywood disaster films: people fleeing danger, screaming and waving their arms in the air, before meeting a grisly end.

This view holds that since people are childlike and can’t look after themselves, they need a paternalistic government to shield them from uncomfortable truths and guide them through a dangerous world. Not surprisingly, this attitude is highly attractive to governments of different stripes. And, over the years, on various committees planning for emergencies, I have seen this attitude again and again. I have endlessly heard the anxious enquiry: “Won’t people panic if we are straight with them?”

The irony here is that people very rarely panic in a crisis. They are generally calm, orderly and, as we’ve seen during the coronavirus crisis, they come together to support each other through hard times. When people die, it is less because they overreact than because they underreact. They fail to appreciate the true dangers of a situation until it is too late. And how can they appreciate those dangers if they aren’t properly warned of them? Lack of openness, and of clear and comprehensive information, does nothing to protect people. To the contrary – such opacity is a killer during a crisis like this.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/13/british-people-lockdown-coronavirus-crisis
 
JaneL said:
The following opinion piece on the Guardian website is very much along the lines of what you were saying here @Woolie (you could have written it yourself!). It’s refreshing to see that the article is actually written by a behavioural scientist on the SAGE committee! :thumbup:






https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/13/british-people-lockdown-coronavirus-crisis
Click to expand...

This is very true. In general, the more information I have, and the more I know the govt (or whichever official body or person) is being transparent with me, the calmer I am. This is even more true in a pandemic like the one we have.
 
lunarainbows said:
The Scientific Advisory Group on Behavioural science (SPI -B) are not happy...the govt published the SAGE scientific reports but redacted a lot of the behavioural science report...

https://theguardian.com/world/2020/may/08/revealed-uk-scientists-fury-over-attempt-to-censor-covid-19-advice?



here’s the heavily redacted report:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ncing-comments-suggestions-spi-b-01042020.pdf
Click to expand...

This document appears to now have been unredacted. I believe it was section 3 that was originally redacted if I remember correctly.

ETA: I’ve just seen this explanation on the SAGE website:

Material was redacted from this document in accordance with the standard principles governing Freedom of Information when it was first published. However Sir Patrick Vallance and No10 agree that such SAGE documents relating to Covid should be published in full, in the interests of maximum transparency, with exceptions only for matters relating to national security.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
lunarainbows said:
This is very true. In general, the more information I have, and the more I know the govt (or whichever official body or person) is being transparent with me, the calmer I am. This is even more true in a pandemic like the one we have.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

It might have been useful, and might still be, to know how much food I needed to get in, for a period of at least 12 weeks shielding (from the beginning of March - before it was called 'shielding').

As advice has varied from 'a few days and then get stuff delivered' - which wasn't possible for weeks, and is still 'difficult' - to a few weeks - to....I have no idea what the current advice is, I'm not sure there is any.

All I know is that those who are considered 'extremely vulnerable', and me, can now have a food parcel, for free, meant to last for a week, but which is missing thought, and ingredients, to allow this to be possible - so I still have to compete for slots, and the availability of stuff on shelves, to try and obtain the omissions, when according to the government, and the media, and therefore society at large, I am supposed to be fully sorted.


Of course, officially, there is plenty of food, all the problems were caused by 'panic buying' what....6-7 weeks ago now, in which case how come the orders I do manage to place are arriving with important things like eggs, flour, milk , veg and meat missing? I can seemingly have as much cheap white bread, cereal, biscuits and frozen high sugar desserts as I want tho - plenty of flour and eggs to make them it seems.:grumpy:

Pity I'm not supposed to eat any of them, let alone on a routine basis.

It's been causing a constant state of stress, anxiety and hopefully, needless expense - because I don't have accurate information, I only have blithe reassurances that at every turn turn out to be self serving lies.

What should have been a nice restful couple of months has been a period of constant stress and anxiety caused by trying to source and pay for things that if the information given by the government, and the supermarkets, was correct wouldn't have been necessary as what I needed, and ordered, would have turned up, as normal, at my door and not left in the street, with no problems.

So giving people accurate, and timely, information is a much better way of doing things, than just blithe reassurances that everything is fine, don't worry, don't make any preparations, just carry on as normal, inside, when every encounter with outside infrastructure says things are not all right, not by a long way.
 
Last edited:
lunarainbows said:
The Scientific Advisory Group on Behavioural science (SPI -B) are not happy...the govt published the SAGE scientific reports but redacted a lot of the behavioural science report...

https://theguardian.com/world/2020/may/08/revealed-uk-scientists-fury-over-attempt-to-censor-covid-19-advice?
Click to expand...
JaneL said:
This document appears to now have been unredacted. I believe it was section 3 that was originally redacted if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...
I share SPI-B’s concerns about its advice being censored by the government (before it was later unredacted), but it seems hypocritical for SPI-B to be calling for transparency when it is still hiding the identity of 4 of its members. Unfortunately, the media seems to have dropped its interest in this.

I can think of no legitimate reason for any member of any government Covid advisory group to remain anonymous.
 
I've tried to keep up with this thread, but struggle quite often. So apologies if this has been posted already - I just saw it posted by a friend on FB, and thought it was really interesting.

‘Finally, a virus got me.’ Scientist who fought Ebola and HIV reflects on facing death from COVID-19

Virologist Peter Piot, director of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, fell ill with COVID-19 in mid-March. He spent a week in a hospital and has been recovering at his home in London since. Climbing a flight of stairs still leaves him breathless.

Piot, who grew up in Belgium, was one of the discoverers of the Ebola virus in 1976 and spent his career fighting infectious diseases. He headed the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS between 1995 and 2008 and is currently a coronavirus adviser to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. But his personal confrontation with the new coronavirus was a life-changing experience, Piot says.

This interview took place on 2 May. Piot’s answers have been edited and translated from Dutch:
Click to expand...
 
On C4 tonight 9pm & I’m sure will be on catch up later on - what we can learn from countries that beat the virus. Looks at South Korea.



PS Prof Devi Sridhar also on Question Time tomorrow night 10.45pm (will be on iPlayer tomorrow I think).

edited because question time is actually tomorrow, not today.
 
Last edited:
Amw66 said:
Sadly , Twitter video of public transport in return to work this morning
Click to expand...


Saw this and just wanted to weep. This is how I used to get off the bus on peak-hour work days. Saw the tube at Canning Town yesterday as well. In London and infact many places, they cannot expect people to “avoid public transport” when told to go into work. You simply cannot do that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom