Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


tobyjugg2

Mutating Corona Virus

Recommended Posts

On 23/01/2020 at 22:53, BazzaS said:

Wuhan is certainly seeing cases in people who haven’t visited the “wet market” where the initial cases had been (and where it is suggested the virus first ‘jumped’ from animals - now felt likely snakes -to humans).
.


it is now believed the original animal reservoir is bats. 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2001126?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article

 

Unless there were bats in the market, and with the original suggestions that snakes in the market were the “animal to human” vector, I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out it was

“bats -> snakes -> humans”.

 

 However “bats -> humans” directly, with an index human case at the market, is also possible, given that human to human transmission has now been confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let us imagine that a plane lands at Heathrow with say 10 infected people, who show no signs of suffering any virus. They then go on trains, buses etc to their place of stay. 

 

The number of people potentially at risk would be very large and the spread would happen very quickly.

 

At the moment, I would not be concerned, as China have put in place movement controls,  but if these failed, then the outbreak could spread more quickly than any country could cope with.

 

Do the Government/NHS have sufficient contingency measures in place to deal with any such crisis ?


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key determinant to UB’s scenario is : at what point in relation to when they develop symptoms are those people infectious.

 

Chickenpox, for example, is infectious (by airborne droplet spread) 2 days before the rash appears. So, the patient might feel a “bit unwell / virally ill” without any specific signs, and not have sufficient symptoms / signs to allow action to be taken.

 

There isn’t enough data (yet!) to know when 2019-nCoV becomes infectious.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/transmission.html

 

“Best guess” is when they start having symptoms of coughing and sneezing, at least that will be peak infectivity.
 

If they are soon to become symptomatic, how infectious is a single cough or sneeze? Nobody yet knows.


Edit: hot off the press:

China coronavirus 'spreads before symptoms show' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51254523

 

As for “Do the Government/NHS have sufficient contingency measures in place to deal with any such crisis ?“

 

The Agency leading (at least for England, each of the other 3 nations of the UK has a similar body) is Public Health England. It isn’t part of the NHS per se, (but works with the NHS).

It is “government”, but quasi-autonomous.

 It describes itself as “We are an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care, and a distinct organisation with operational autonomy”.

 

PHE has issued guidance, both for primary care and secondary care, for (amongst other things):

a) who gets tested,

b) case management, and

c) infection prevention measures.

 

Whilst more information specific to 2019-nCoV is being learnt, these are pretty much based on what we know from SARS and MERS, but I’d expect them to get “fine-tuned” as we know more.

 

So, there are plans.

 

2 factors spring to mind immediately, though.

 

A) Can the plans be fully implemented? Hospitals are already facing bed pressures.

If demand for resources (such as FFP3 masks) soars: will supplies match demand? (Both for “total number of units available overall, over the total period of demand”, but equally importantly  “supplies deliverable on demand: what would be the equivalent of ‘cashflow’ for a bank“)

 

B) Availability of testing. With a small number of cases meeting the case definition, each can be tested.

If 2019-nCoV becomes widespread, will the availability of testing match demand? What will the turnaround time for testing be?

 

Will testing matter if it becomes widespread?

At the moment, there is widespread availability of testing for Flu and the most common respiratory viruses. This is useful so that they can prioritise the isolation of Flu A patients in hospital, and offer them treatment for FluA, and Mrs Bloggs who looks like they might have flu, but actually has picornavirus on a background of chronic bronchitis doesn’t get isolated and doesn’t get flu treatment once her results are back.

 

Will testing matter as much for 2019-nCoV? Not for treatment (as there is no specific antiviral at the moment). How about for decision on isolation? That’ll depend on how many cases there are (there may not be enough side rooms), and if testing supply can match demand.

 

(not quite “worst case” but “not great case”) scenario is :
A) Hospital wards: not enough side rooms. “Cohort nursing” in bays (or even “cohort wards”), so Mrs Bloggs with her rhinovirus and chronic bronchitis gets put in the bed next door to Mrs Bull who has 2019-nCoV (or, even: next door to Mr Bull, if things get bad enough the ‘same sex’ rules get suspended).

B) Split Emergency Departments. Non “?flu, ?2019-nCoV” go to one side, those with compatible respiratory symptoms go to another waiting area. All the respiratory symptom patients lumped in, waiting, together.

I’d expect once people realised where they would be waiting they would only go if they really had no other choice ......


On the plus side, much was learnt from the SARS outbreak, so they are better informed than when they first faced SARS

Edited by BazzaS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t want to live under a repressive government that had a centrally controlled economy and actively suppressed dissent.

Yet such an economy could bring massive resources (financial and manpower) into play.

 

Coronavirus: How can China build a hospital so quickly? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51245156

 

It isn’t just that it is being built so quickly, but also that it is being built with infection control in mind, and means other healthcare facilities can transfer suspected cases there, retaining their capacity to treat non-respiratory illness patients.

Edited by BazzaS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Variola may have been introduced to humans through such a cross-species transfer” “It is closest in DNA sequence to camelpox virus, which causes smallpox-like disease in camels; both viruses are apparently descended from a recent common ancestor.”

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/38/6/882/321153

On 24/01/2020 at 09:31, tobyjugg2 said:

 

Sars type incubation period is 5-14 days with the CDC saying (as info increases)

 

" The median incubation period for secondary cases associated with limited human-to-human transmission is approximately 5 days (*range* 2-14 days).

 

In MERS-CoV patients, the *** median *** time from illness onset to hospitalization is approximately 4 days."

 

 

https://www.medicinenet.com/mers_middle_east_respiratory_syndrome/article.htm

 

 

To re-read.

Frankly anyone who thinks the WHO, CDC and UK Gov recommendation of 14 days is anything other than a sensible minimum, is a dangerous idiot IMO, particularly given the apparent extremely fast mutation rate being reported ...  and ability to jump species

 

 

 

 

Mutation of Smallpox

**********************

  "Clinical descriptions indicate that smallpox always had a high case-fatality rate until around the end of the 19th Century, when a more benign form of the disease, with a similar rash but much lower mortality rate, appeared in the Western Hemisphere.

Less lethal types of smallpox were also noted in Africa, where they may have existed for some time [5]. These milder variants are now designated “variola minor,” in contrast to the traditional “variola major.”

The genetic changes responsible for attenuation have not been identified.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/38/6/882/321153

 

Interestingly cowpox was used as a relatively effective ‘vaccine’ against smallpox,

and monkeypox seems to be ‘expanding’ to fill the nasty nitch that smallpox existed in.

Note That although smallpox and monkeypox are often talked about in the same breath, and are often considered closely related, despite monkeypox, camelpox and Cowpox vaccines’ effectiveness against smallpox and each other, the genetics of smallpox and monkeypox have been examined and they are not believed to be actually genetically ‘related’.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/monkeypox

 

On the other hand Camelpox and Smallpox on more recent examination are believed to be VERY closely related:

“Variola may have been introduced to humans through such a cross-species transfer” (like Coronavirus)

It (smallpox) is closest in DNA sequence to camelpox virus, which causes smallpox-like disease in camels;

***** both viruses are apparently descended from a recent common ancestor.

"The appearance of variola minor may represent a stage in variola's adaptation to its human host."

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/38/6/882/321153


 

 

 

Possible sources of fresh smallpox outbreaks

************************************************

Lots of references say things like smallpox has been ‘entirely eliminated from the world’ when it clearly still exists. ‘Eradicated’ should be qualified as being ‘from the living human poplation. Even whether ‘carriers’ exist is unknown.

 

* ‘Officially’ (WHO approved) in 2 labs - which means little to weapons programs or nature itself - Accidents and misplacing links already supplied.

 

* Unofficially it is claimed to be held in other bio-weapons labs: Just two links of many:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_biological_weapons_program

https://www.news-medical.net/health/Smallpox-Biological-Warfare.aspx

 

* Animal hosts and species jumping of genetically similar Virus like Camelpox.

 

* thousands of Inuit infected bodies across the melting areas of the melting Northern ice and peat bogs and tar pits around the world.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170504-there-are-diseases-hidden-in-ice-and-they-are-waking-up

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/01/24/575974220/are-there-zombie-viruses-in-the-thawing-permafrost?t=1580114743932

 

 

in the summer of 2016 a large anthrax outbreak struck Siberia.

"A heat wave in the Arctic thawed a thick layer of the permafrost, and a bunch of reindeer carcasses started to warm up. The animals had died of anthrax, and as their bodies thawed, so did the bacteria. Anthrax spores spread across the tundra. Dozens of people were hospitalized, and a 12-year-old boy died.

 

On the surface, it looked as if zombie anthrax had somehow come back to life after being frozen for 70 years. What pathogen would be next? Smallpox? The 1918 flu?"

 

 

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citing random resources without stating how they support your argument is easy to do, but doesn’t demonstrate understanding.

 

you still haven’t answered my three questions.

 

you still are resistant to understanding the difference between “incubation period” and “period used for case finding”, which is probably why you aren’t answering that question.

 

You are still resistant to addressing that the smallpox vaccine target didn’t mutate across centuries... which is probably why you aren’t answering that question.

 

The third question was “which is the 3rd lab that holds stocks of smallpox virus? (which you even claimed was “easily found”) ... if it is so easy, why not let us know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont claim to be a virologist, although I do very clearly understand what mean, mode, median and range mean. Perhaps look them up?

.

 

Perhaps also take up your 'expert' opinion with medicinet which I quite clearly quoted from my first reference, and was one of a number of the less technical and more readable reputable sources (linked) I used to base my opinion and statements:

 

" The median incubation period for secondary cases associated with limited human-to-human transmission is approximately 5 days (*range* 2-14 days)."

 

Perhaps also offer your 'expert' opinion to WHO, CDC and the UK government who seem to agree with the link?

Particularly given what any of the reported rapid mutations might result in which makes that stated range in any way impossible or at least beyond reasoned expectation .... rather than quite the opposite?

... you being such an expert on mutation and all ... despite clearly NOT being a Catherine Thèves

....... because despite not being a virologist, I knew - but still confirmed - that ALL Virus mutate albeit at different rates..

 

 

and look at the links for the weapons labs and history and the references they summarise.

You will see the 2nd Russian weapons lab mentioned. Following links should be simple for an expert in the field, and only takes a short time.

Just follow the links (and not to conspiracy nutters like Alex Jones) and you will see also see other Labs and references. I did clearly state 'reported' not 'authorised'

 

 

and regarding the smallpox/cowpox vaccines used across the centuries ...

You seem to be missing the simple fact that the various vaccines were updated from live samples right up until its 'eradication'

Perhaps look up the latest studies on modern examination of historic smallpox to map its types and paths..

Catherine Thèves is a good place to start ....

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

clarification

Perhaps look up the latest studies on modern examination of historic smallpox to attempt to map its types and paths..


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Range 2-14 days is not “incubation period is 14 days” that you keep banging on about, any more than it’d be accurate to say “incubation period is 2 days”.

 

Not only do I understand range, median, mode and mean, but distribution (e.g. normal distribution), and standard deviation too ..... having mentioned these previously.

Search enough of my previous posts and you’ll see part of my work involves such.

is part of your work explaining to people not only the statistics.... but as importantly their limitations.....

 

2) I still don’t believe there are 3 authorised labs holding smallpox stocks. Which 3 labs? (You may find that it was always 2 authorised labs, even if it was stock transferred from one to a different one in the USSR, only ever 2 at any one time), but still waiting on you clarifying which 3 so I can see if that is the explanation for your mistaken belief.

 

You might want to read Kanatjan Alibekov’s (Anglicized : Ken Alibek) book ‘Biohazard’.

 

3) The smallpox vaccine target didn’t mutate and that was one of the key features in its eradication.

It didn’t mutate over centuries.

Seems little point in me repeating it yet again, so this is my last try on that point.

Edited by BazzaS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we can’t agree on the incubation period, what are you thoughts on “Ro” for 2019-CoV (or R0), which I’d prefer to write as R(subscript-0) if I was able....

 

a) what would you estimate it to be?

 

I’ve seen estimates of between 1.4-2.5 (the WHO report factoring in 4th generation cases, from Jan 23rd),

 

1.4-3.8 from other analyses from the same date, although Fisman from Toronto (who did much of the modelling around SARS) cites a paper noting “the volume of observed exported cases in countries outside China suggested a much larger underlying epidemic than had been reported at that time, and this epidemic may have begun a month prior to the recognition of
the market-associated outbreak, consistent with the reported timing of
viral emergence based on phylogenetic analyses”

Fisman believes there is “a SARS-compatible generation time of 6-10 days” (so, again, not 14 days!), stating that he believes the transmission dynamics are similar to SARS  It is the average R0 that determines whether, and how, the disease
can be controlled.  By analogy with SARS and MERS, with which nCoV
seems to share many characteristics, the spread of this virus should
be controllable.”

 

Do you agree:

a) “superspreaders may widen the Ro range seen” (there are suggestion one hospitalised case generated 14 secondary cases), and

b) the outbreak can be controlled by measures to bring Ro (targeting both standard spreaders and accepting the challenge of “superspreaders”) down to below 1?

 

Happy to consider your expert epidemiological opinion based on current knowledge of the statistics currently available (& accepting that the information gets refined over time!)

 

Ohh, and that still isn’t an incubation period of 14 days, if the generation time is 10 days  (dependant on when / if infectivity occurs prior to symptoms, are you suggesting that that interval is 4+ days??)

Edited by BazzaS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets look at your one link (I think) apart from some recent news reports from China

 

My statements are as defined by WHO, the CDC etc etc based on the experiences they had in managing and investigating prior similar outbreaks like MERS and SARS

 

... gets my vote

 

 

Yours references appear based on a reputable source

MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus/

 

BUT - what actually is it?

 

I've scanned through two the two latest reports and it certainlt seems to be a mathematical modelling exercise (standard deviation etc) on the current outbreak based on the limited information currently available.

 

Absolutely a worthy and essential goal that undoubtedly will add to our knowledge of the progress of these sort of outbreaks

It MIGHT even update the processes and procedures already in place some time in the future, or it might simply confirm them.

 

 

But is is accurate or anything other at present?

From the LATEST updated report 3 - their own words quoted.

 

"For our baseline estimates, we assume that two key characteristics of 2019-nCoV are similar to those observed for SARS

 

that there is high  level of variability  in the number of new infections generated by each infectious individual 

 

and that the  generation time (the  average time between generations of infection)  is  the same as was estimated for SARS (mean of  8.4  days  [3])"

 

 

 

"we also generate estimates assuming 1000 or 9700 cases by 18th January, the lower and upper bounds of the uncertainty range around our
central estimate of 4000 cases by that date."

(a 10 fold spread in the estimates)

 

 

How accurate have these guess-timations you quote here proven to be (in their own words)?

" The  uncertainty range is 1,000-9,700, reflecting the many continuing unknowns involved in deriving these estimates. Our central estimate of 4,000 is more than double our past estimates, a result of the increase of the number of cases detected outside mainland China "

 

 

So yes I do understand them, and will stick with the CDC/WHO figures thank you

 

 

 

 

oh and of course a Russian spook selling a book - which I admit to NOT having read

- I did say not Alex Jones

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BazzaS said:

2) I still don’t believe there are 3 authorised labs holding smallpox stocks.

Which 3 labs? (You may find that it was always 2 authorised labs, even if it was stock transferred from one to a different one in the USSR, only ever 2 at any one time), but still waiting on you clarifying which 3 so I can see if that is the explanation for your mistaken belief.

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

and look at the links for the weapons labs and history and the references they summarise.

You will see the 2nd Russian weapons lab mentioned. Following links should be simple for an expert in the field, and only takes a short time.

Just follow the links (and not to conspiracy nutters like Alex Jones) and you will see also see other Labs and references. I did clearly state 'reported' not 'authorised'

 

 

 

 

... Repeatedly

.... You even quoted it - but clearly didn't actually read it on any of the occasions.

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh well. No actual answers then.

Fair enough, I can’t persuade you.

 

Time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

 

So you must have read and studied your quoted sources more than I did,

even though you clearly haven't looked at the very specific, totally relevant and highly reputable links I supplied, especially regarding:

the time range (No1 most important) of infection

and mutation - 2 min types of smallpox + sub types (eg haemorrhagic) and recent single predecessor of Smallpox and Camelpox per (linked) DNA analysis ...

 

Anyway

What I saw at your link seemed more an analysis of the effectiveness of the Chinese management of the outbreak than anything .......

that IS a personal interpretation .. but based on the sort of analysis and what they were looking at

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't suppose anyone has a reliable link about to how to protect ourselves against the virus if it starts to spread in the UK?

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a difficult question HB,

But from mers/sars coronavirus advice - contact with bodily fluids which are either directly (sneezes coughs)  or indirectly (surfaces soon after touched/sneezed on by infected person) then transferred to absorption areas like mouth, nasal or eyes.

 

So the Chinese type face masks and I can understand the eye goggles

- along with meticulous cleaning of the hands as we all regularly poke our mouths, noses and eyes without realising it.

 

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670115003679

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26597631/

 

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A thorough scrub with warm soapy water is surprisingly effective in many areas

 

"Dr David Carrington, of St George’s, University of London, told BBC News that “routine surgical masks for the public are not an effective protection against viruses or bacteria carried in the air”, because they were too loose, had no air filter and left the eyes exposed.

Masks could, however, help lower the risk of contracting a virus through the “splash” from a sneeze or a cough and offer some protection against hand-to-mouth transmissions, he said."

" The consensus appears to be that wearing a mask can limit – but not eliminate – the risks, provided they are used correctly. That means securing them over the mouth, chin and nose, using the bendable metal strip at the top to keep it snug against the contours of the nose. "

 

and especially:

"WHO experts advise against wearing gloves on the basis that hand-washing is more important and people wearing gloves are less likely to wash their hands. "

 

Who's (sic) seen their own kids with silver streaks embedded in their mits ?

 

  • Like 1

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

A thorough scrub with warm soapy water is surprisingly effective in many areas

Yup.  Wash your hands is a remarkably good strategy.  Another is not to be old or immunocompromised to start with.  From the various reports I've read the % death rate  has been adjusted downwards more than once.  Meanwhile the December figures for our 'ordinary' annual flu don't make particularly pretty reading but nobody has triggered panic mode.

Public Health England said the number of flu cases confirmed in hospitals in the week to 8 December was 472, up from 330 the week before. There were 124 new admissions to intensive care or high-dependency units for flu, up from 80 the week before.
There were eight deaths in intensive care units in the week to 8 December where flu was a factor – the highest number this season and taking the total death toll for the UK to 15 over a nine-week period.
In an alert to NHS bosses and GPs, Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer at the Department of Health and Social Care, said: “Surveillance data indicates an increase in influenza cases in the community. Prescribers may now prescribe and pharmacists may now supply antiviral medicines for the prophylaxis and treatment of influenza at NHS expense.”

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without wishing to sound condescending, I've added a post to the new NHS forum thread about coronavirus and how to protect ourselves [no discussions on there please, we have this thread].

 

I hadn't visited anyone who was seriously ill for a long time and when my father was in a kidney ward a few years ago, I discovered the hygiene regulations that the hospital ward had for before you went in. They were far more thorough than the last time I went to a hospital and it was an education.


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

same chap in Bazzas link

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/26/coronavirus-could-infect-100000-globally-experts-warn?CMP=GTUK_email

 

Well, this bit of it

Prof Neil Ferguson, a public health expert at Imperial College, said his “best guess” was that there were 100,000 affected by the virus even though there are only 2,000 confirmed cases so far, mostly in the city of Wuhan in China where the virus first appeared.

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Same chap” as in Prof Ferguson from Imperial, or as in Dr Carrington (who has returned to St George’s but used to head up the PHE [PHLS in those days!] Virology Service in Bristol) along with Matt Donati and Peter Muir)

 

You’ve quoted them both, recently.

Edited by BazzaS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BazzaS said:

“Same chap” as in Prof Ferguson from Imperial, or as in Dr Carrington (who has returned to St George’s but used to head up the PHE [PHLS in those days!] Virology Service in Bristol) along with Matt Donati and Peter Muir)

 

You’ve quoted them both, recently.

 

22 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

same chap in Bazzas link

 

 

I did add the second bit - so thats excusable

 

 

but "same chap in Bazzas link" and the short article  and the fourth line, the start of second para " Prof Neil Ferguson, a public health expert at Imperial College, "

- generates that from you

 

O.O

 

You really don't even glance at others links do you?

No wonder you won't accept the facts in them.

 

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hightail said:

Meanwhile the December figures for our 'ordinary' annual flu don't make particularly pretty reading but nobody has triggered panic mode.

......

 

Prescribers may now prescribe and pharmacists may now supply antiviral medicines for the prophylaxis and treatment of influenza at NHS expense.”

 


No need for panic mode (for flu)

 

We have a vaccine.

 

We have a widely available testing system to differentiate FluA and B from the other respiratory viruses with similar presentations.
 

We have treatments (oseltamivir, and zanamivit) and the testing means to determine if the FluA is an H3 or H1 (helping predict when to use zanamivir because of the higher risk of oseltamivir resistance via the H275Y mutation that is seen more commonly with H1N1 over H3 strains)

 

More interventions / treatments : less panic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologise for mentioning this, but people are dying or afraid of dying.

 

Is it worth point scoring over? I know you're both better then this. :)

 

Edit: this was in response to a couple of posts ago.


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 Cagger


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...