Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

MERS Coronavirus warning

Not if you ignore the science there isn't:




I'd go with the Nature Reviews paper I just posted. It's a higher impact journal and also was only published a week ago.

Edit* interesting, they also cite a Nature Reviews paper - however this shows the debate is clearly not settled.
 
That's not proving the absence of something - it's proving that immunity exists. There is no evidence about how long people who have caught COVID-19 are immune for.
That was my point. You said "we need evidence that there is no reinfection" but you cannot prove that as it's evidence of absence.

All you can do is provide evidence that reinfection does not occur in a certain period of time. For all you know the next day reinfection could occur. As soon as someone provides strong evidence that there is no reinfection for 6 months after initial infection some smartarse will say "What about a year after infection?".
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
Yeh, just more bollox.

That's certainly true, but what did you expect. Before we know it Gove will be extolling the virtues of experts...........oh wait.
15EFDA01-EDBD-429A-AFF4-CF9AA3754742.jpeg
 
I'd go with the Nature Reviews paper I just posted. It's a higher impact journal and also was only published a week ago.

Edit* interesting, they also cite a Nature Reviews paper - however this shows the debate is clearly not settled.

I read it; nowhere in it does it say this:


There is no evidence about how long people who have caught COVID-19 are immune for.

That bit in bold is bollox. The article does say that confirmed reinfections are rare. It may even say 'extremely rare'. That's evidence right there.
 
I'm prepared to follow the government's (Canada and Ontario in my case) guidance on this matter. Their reaction is based on trends, not absolute numbers, because we are dealing with a new disease and we have only a few months of experience in dealing with it. We can look at other diseases, but this one has some unique twists of its own.

Early in the pandemic the press demanded set trigger points so they would have nice graphs to show the public and numbers they could use to beat the government over the head with when the latest data didn't exactly match up with the projections.

There were models which showed very roughly how bad things could get if nothing was done, and where the bottlenecks were in the health system. They were general guidelines though, not precise maps.

We're prodding our way through a minefield day by day. We know roughly the limits of the minefield and the direction we need to take to get out of it, but we don't know where each mine is buried. We do know though that if we run out of patience and just run blindly forward we will almost certainly get blown up on a mine.

quite.

I follow the government advice too. That does not mean I agree with all of it. I don’t understand how I can go to work with hundreds of other people, go to every shop and pub I wish to but not see my wider family of more than six.

and having been on ops with actual IEDs, I know very personally that there comes a balance between a requirement to move and a requirement between treating everywhere as riddled with IEDs. Not moving makes you a target for other things - ambush in a military context, recession, depression, avoidable deaths in a civil setting. I’m asking for the metrics. Either they exist or they do not. If they do not, we are acting on advice made up of whimsy.
 
You do realise of course that you're the one who needs reliable models and predictions to make your plan work?

No, I said wait till we hit 60k and then lock down. Just actual data. No model or prediction required.

It was a tongue in cheek post anyway, but I don't know why you have to make stuff up about it.
 
That was my point. You said "we need evidence that there is no reinfection" but you cannot prove that as it's evidence of absence.

All you can do is provide evidence that reinfection does not occur in a certain period of time. For all you know the next day reinfection could occur. As soon as someone provides strong evidence that there is no reinfection for 6 months after initial infection some smartarse will say "What about a year after infection?".
From what I've read, for a vaccine to be effective on the population as a whole, it is not necessary for there to be no reinfection. The reinfection level just needs to be low enough that the virus can't find enough receptive hosts to spread effectively.

In fact, existing vaccines apparently aren't 100% effective either.

Current vaccination trials seem to be producing anti-body responses, which would seem to indicate they will be effective. Since people who become sick do get better we have reason to believe that anti-bodies do work against the virus.

The open question at this time seems to be that once an effective vaccine is developed will it be a once in a lifetime thing, or will we have to get it renewed annually or every few years.
 
The open question at this time seems to be that once an effective vaccine is developed will it be a once in a lifetime thing, or will we have to get it renewed annually or every few years.

There's been talk of prioritising certain groups for the vaccine when it starts to be issued, since the quantities required for everyone won't be there initially. I assume they mean front line hospital staff or the elderly.

So from that I'd guess that over the long term not everyone would need it; just those most at risk, a bit like the flu vaccine.
 
quite.

I follow the government advice too. That does not mean I agree with all of it. I don’t understand how I can go to work with hundreds of other people, go to every shop and pub I wish to but not see my wider family of more than six.

and having been on ops with actual IEDs, I know very personally that there comes a balance between a requirement to move and a requirement between treating everywhere as riddled with IEDs. Not moving makes you a target for other things - ambush in a military context, recession, depression, avoidable deaths in a civil setting. I’m asking for the metrics. Either they exist or they do not. If they do not, we are acting on advice made up of whimsy.
And when dealing with IEDs were there precise metrics as to when you did one thing versus doing another, or were the leadership expected to exercise their judgement based on the best knowledge and advice available at the time, according to the situation as it evolved?

In a previous post I summarised a public affairs show in Canada where several public health officials said that most of the outbreaks they were actually seeing were mainly due to face to face socialising in unstructured environments, not in work places, schools, restaurants, or pubs who were following the guidelines. When the guidelines are followed they seem to be reasonably effective.

The main problems were large gatherings involving family and friends, such as large parties and weddings where people were not following social distancing guidelines or the limits on the number of people.

As a result in Ontario the numbers of people allowed to gather in a location outside of work, school has recently been reduced to (if I recall correctly) 10 indoors and 25 outdoors.

This sounds very similar to the situation in the UK despite being arrived at independently. It was based on the latest evidence by observation of where outbreaks were actually occurring as seen by the people investigating them.

I offered to post that video here, but there were no takers.
 
There is a saying commonly attributed to Gove that goes along the lines of "when the outcome that best serves me changes I change my principles, what do you do, sir?"

FOC for the little toad.
 
And when dealing with IEDs were there precise metrics as to when you did one thing versus doing another, or were the leadership expected to exercise their judgement based on the best knowledge and advice available at the time, according to the situation as it evolved?

In a previous post I summarised a public affairs show in Canada where several public health officials said that most of the outbreaks they were actually seeing were mainly due to face to face socialising in unstructured environments, not in work places, schools, restaurants, or pubs who were following the guidelines. When the guidelines are followed they seem to be reasonably effective.

The main problems were large gatherings involving family and friends, such as large parties and weddings where people were not following social distancing guidelines or the limits on the number of people.

As a result in Ontario the numbers of people allowed to gather in a location outside of work, school has recently been reduced to (if I recall correctly) 10 indoors and 25 outdoors.

This sounds very similar to the situation in the UK despite being arrived at independently. It was based on the latest evidence by observation of where outbreaks were actually occurring as seen by the people investigating them.

I offered to post that video here, but there were no takers.

I agree with your latter point.

My former point was as a commander, my principle was mostly greatest good for greatest number - utilitarianism if you will. As opposed to a Kantian approach with categorical imperatives.

Now, if we go down the Kantian approach of it never being acceptable for someone to die from Covid, we can all brick our doors up. No transmission, it would die out in three weeks, along with millions. Or it is the greatest good for the greatest number. So how many people is it acceptable to die for our previous liberty. 20,000 deaths a year from flu previously merited no restriction on liberty. I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t impose restrictions, but asking what are the metrics and science behind it.
 
There's been talk of prioritising certain groups for the vaccine when it starts to be issued, since the quantities required for everyone won't be there initially. I assume they mean front line hospital staff or the elderly.
The same has been said in Canada with respect to priorities of who gets the vaccine. There has been no official policy set however, and I suspect there won't be one until they know what vaccines will be available and in what quantities.

So from that I'd guess that over the long term not everyone would need it; just those most at risk, a bit like the flu vaccine.
The greatest benefit would come from everyone getting the vaccine in order to try to reduce the prevalence of the virus to as low a level as practical, and to wipe it out if possible.

There will be several problems. One is that vaccines often are not 100% effective. That is, some percentage of the people who get vaccinated will for some reason not produce the correct immune response and so will not actually be immunised.

Another problem, related to the one above, is that some people have weak immune systems, so the vaccination will do relatively little to protect them. These may be the elderly, those living with cancer or other diseases, and others. The vaccination "primes" their immune system, but it may still be too weak to fight off the virus.

However, if enough people get vaccinated effectively, then the rest are protected through "herd immunity". Yes this is like the herd immunity you would have if most people had the disease and survived it, but it's produced through artificial means rather than through having most people get sick.

The issue is going to be if enough people listen to anti-vaxxers and refuse to get vaccinated, we won't hit the 70% level (or whatever it is) required for herd immunity, and we'll still get outbreaks, although not as serious as we have now. It should be remembered by the way that a certain percentage of the people who do get vaccinated won't be immune because the vaccine didn't work effectively on them for some reason, so there isn't headroom for 30% of people to be anti-vaxxers.
 

Latest Threads

Top