Coronavirus Health - Health and Wellbeing

[look]

i read bad news about a new kind of coronavirus in UK, even with a talk of a more severe lockdown.

Time to write about the basics: tiamine (vit. b1) and vit C. according mATh protocol, vit. D, nac and zinc.

Add others.

Itr's not impossible that this malaise is all planned by the chinese gov.

[ReformedCharacter]

Lateral flow devices are set to be rolled out to secondary schools and colleges as term starts in January, with a round of testing for the return, and then weekly coronavirus testing for teachers and daily coronavirus tests for students and staff identified as a close contact of a Covid cases to keep them in school.

Prof Deeks told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme it was “concerning” that only a couple of cases were found with these tests - which turn around results within minutes - out of around 7,100 students who came forward for asymptomatic testing before Christmas at the university. Research – led by Professor Alan McNally at the university – tested 10 per cent of the negative cases with PCR tests, and found another six coronavirus cases. “Our summary was that we probably found two students and missed 60 with this test because of its poor performance,”

Experts have previously suggested that relying on rapid tests which give a result in minutes could mean a high proportion of cases are missed with false negative results. These rapid coronavirus tests were failing to identify up to 50 per cent of positive infections, according to the government’s own analysis published in early December.

Prof Deeks from the University of Birmingham said they found a “very, very low detection rate” at the university, saying “it really surprised us as to how bad it was”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/educ ... 77466.html

I think this will go badly, given the increased transmissibility of the new strain.

RC

[ReformedCharacter]

Plans for 30-minute Covid testing in England halted over accuracy fears. Government shelves rollout of lateral flow tests as experts warn they can give false reassurance.

Government figures from the mass testing programme in Liverpool revealed earlier this month that the tests missed 30% of cases with a high viral load and half of positive cases that were detected by standard coronavirus tests.

Lateral flow devices were used to mass-test university students across the UK before they returned home for Christmas earlier this month. However, a study of the results of more than 7,000 students at the University of Birmingham suggested that about 60 positive cases were missed.

Jon Deeks, a professor of biostatistics and head of the test evaluation research group at the University of Birmingham, said the tests were “not fit for purpose” unless they were used on highly infectious people and that even then, a follow-up test was required using a swab.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... racy-fears

That plan didn't last long

RC

[look]

difficut but interesting link.

the women and childs resists better to covid because they have a lower Krebs cycle.

the excess of aminoacids could help the covid, if i read it right.

https://search.proquest.com/openview/8b ... bl=4361587

[Mike4]

Plans for 30-minute Covid testing in England halted over accuracy fears. Government shelves rollout of lateral flow tests as experts warn they can give false reassurance.

Government figures from the mass testing programme in Liverpool revealed earlier this month that the tests missed 30% of cases with a high viral load and half of positive cases that were detected by standard coronavirus tests.

Lateral flow devices were used to mass-test university students across the UK before they returned home for Christmas earlier this month. However, a study of the results of more than 7,000 students at the University of Birmingham suggested that about 60 positive cases were missed.

Jon Deeks, a professor of biostatistics and head of the test evaluation research group at the University of Birmingham, said the tests were “not fit for purpose” unless they were used on highly infectious people and that even then, a follow-up test was required using a swab.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... racy-fears

That plan didn't last long

RC

Well as I understand it, the ways in which the lateral flow test can be useful are quite narrow given the high false negative rate, and this is not one of them.

An example of how the lateral flow test could be put to effective use is if a whole population uses one test every morning before going to school or work.

The positive results are quite reliable but the negatives are not. This means that if everyone tests themselves every morning, some (but not all) of the asymptomatic cases will be flagged up and those people will therefore stay at home and isolate instead of going out and spreading infection. Yes some of the asymptomatic cases will also be missed and go to work, but otherwise they would ALL have gone to go to school/work, so society is now up on the deal. Some (but not all) will now stay at home which is a significant benefit to society in reduction of community spread.

Getting this point across to politicians, individuals and health secretaries is probably near impossible however.

[Itsallaguess]

An example of how the lateral flow test could be put to effective use is if a whole population uses one test every morning before going to school or work.

The positive results are quite reliable but the negatives are not. This means that if everyone tests themselves every morning, some (but not all) of the asymptomatic cases will be flagged up and those people will therefore stay at home and isolate instead of going out and spreading infection.

Yes some of the asymptomatic cases will also be missed and go to work, but otherwise they would ALL have gone to go to school/work, so society is now up on the deal. Some (but not all) will now stay at home which is a significant benefit to society in reduction of community spread.

Getting this point across to politicians, individuals and health secretaries is probably near impossible however.

My sons school are introducing voluntary mass testing in early January, prior to the return of children on the 7th - they'll be using lateral flow tests for this process.

Parents have been kept informed a number of times about these testing proposals, and we were given opportunities for questions and feedback, and a week or so ago we all received another email covering some of the concerns raised, one of which was the lack of 100% accuracy that you've highlighted.

The school then clearly explained the point you've raised - telling us that any single positive case that can be kept out of the school following the high-risk Christmas period will have a large downstream community benefit, and whilst it's accepted that every single positive case might not be caught, the relatively high number of asymptomatic cases seen in children generally means that any that actually *were* caught by the mass testing scheme would definitely be worth it.

I think you're right that the focus on the positive cases that might slip through any lateral-flow mass-testing net has sometimes been allowed to dominate this debate, but I do need to give huge credit to my son's school for making sure that the solid arguments explaining the downstream benefits of catching *any* cases with this type of broad lateral-flow testing programme, and especially where such cases carry a high risk of being asymptomatic in nature, is likely to have a big downstream benefit when we consider the risks of simply allowing those cases to propagate in a school environment with no pre-screening at all following the Christmas period..

We've subsequently been told that take-up of the voluntary lateral-flow testing scheme prior to the return of children to the school in January has been extremely high indeed, and I think a lot of credit for that needs to go to the willingness of the school to engage properly with parents on the topic, and clearly explain the very good arguments for it...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[jackdaww]

re vaccination jabs .

it seems the first jab gives 91% efficacy , the second boosts that to 95% .

it is being proposed that the one jab should be rolled out to twice the number of people .

i will settle for 91% any time.

why has this idea only just surfaced?

[swill453]

Getting this point across to politicians, individuals and health secretaries is probably near impossible however.

I think they're well aware of the shortcomings.

Expediency plays a part. For example persuading the French to accept negative lateral flow tests rather than PCR tests is the difference between getting 5000 lorry drivers home for Christmas or not.

I'm guessing in the background is the thought that this "new variant" is probably rife in Europe anyway, so this has all been a waste of time.

Scott.

[Mike4]

re vaccination jabs .

it seems the first jab gives 91% efficacy , the second boosts that to 95% .

it is being proposed that the one jab should be rolled out to twice the number of people .

i will settle for 91% any time.

why has this idea only just surfaced?

There seems to be some debate about this. Where did you get that 91% efficacy from please, and which vaccine are you writing about?

At the end of Tony Blair's article today in The Independent, in the comments section, someone gives some very different figures, again without citing their source but they sound well-informed. I'm wondering who is right.

"I am not sure the scientists would agree with Mr Blair. The efficacy of the vaccine ( Pfizer) after one dose was 29.5-68.4% an average of 52%. Seven days after two doses this rose to 95%. There is a risk that you will waste up to half of the vaccine on people that will still get ill."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/co ... 77845.html

[jackdaww]

re vaccination jabs .

it seems the first jab gives 91% efficacy , the second boosts that to 95% .

it is being proposed that the one jab should be rolled out to twice the number of people .

i will settle for 91% any time.

why has this idea only just surfaced?

There seems to be some debate about this. Where did you get that 91% efficacy from please, and which vaccine are you writing about?

At the end of Tony Blair's article today in The Independent, in the comments section, someone gives some very different figures, again without citing their source but they sound well-informed. I'm wondering who is right.

"I am not sure the scientists would agree with Mr Blair. The efficacy of the vaccine ( Pfizer) after one dose was 29.5-68.4% an average of 52%. Seven days after two doses this rose to 95%. There is a risk that you will waste up to half of the vaccine on people that will still get ill."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/co ... 77845.html

=====================================

heard on BBC R4 this morning . a science professor and tony blair . i didnt catch which vaccine .

[ReformedCharacter]

My sons school are introducing voluntary mass testing in early January, prior to the return of children on the 7th - they'll be using lateral flow tests for this process.

Parents have been kept informed a number of times about these testing proposals, and we were given opportunities for questions and feedback, and a week or so ago we all received another email covering some of the concerns raised, one of which was the lack of 100% accuracy that you've highlighted.

The school then clearly explained the point you've raised - telling us that any single positive case that can be kept out of the school following the high-risk Christmas period will have a large downstream community benefit, and whilst it's accepted that every single positive case might not be caught, the relatively high number of asymptomatic cases seen in children generally means that any that actually *were* caught by the mass testing scheme would definitely be worth it.

I think you're right that the focus on the positive cases that might slip through any lateral-flow mass-testing net has sometimes been allowed to dominate this debate, but I do need to give huge credit to my son's school for making sure that the solid arguments explaining the downstream benefits of catching *any* cases with this type of broad lateral-flow testing programme, and especially where such cases carry a high risk of being asymptomatic in nature, is likely to have a big downstream benefit when we consider the risks of simply allowing those cases to propagate in a school environment with no pre-screening at all following the Christmas period..

We've subsequently been told that take-up of the voluntary lateral-flow testing scheme prior to the return of children to the school in January has been extremely high indeed, and I think a lot of credit for that needs to go to the willingness of the school to engage properly with parents on the topic, and clearly explain the very good arguments for it...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

It's good to hear that your son's school has your confidence. My concern is that the LFTs are being used in order to keep children at school when previously they would have been sent home. As I understand it, last term children and staff were placed in bubbles and if someone in a bubble tested positive for C19 then the staff and children in the bubble were sent home to self-isolate. Next term, if someone tests positive for C19 during a (presumably) staggered weekly test everyone else in the bubble will remain at school but will then be tested every day for 7 days. So there is the prospect of much less self-isolation, a post Xmas boost in infected individuals, a test with many false negatives and a more infectious strain. I wish I could see this going well.

RC

[look]

narguille is very bad, worser than people think.

[look]

I suggest to read this tweeter. Please roll the image until Robin Monotti's post (31 dec.)

https://twitter.com/michaelyeadon3

[XFool]

I suggest to read this tweeter. Please roll the image until Robin Monotti's post (31 dec.)

https://twitter.com/michaelyeadon3

Oh yeah? Why's that then?

(I really shouldn't!)

[redsturgeon]

Interesting article on the role of melatonin and sleep in Covid 19.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... zz/617454/

John

[johnhemming]

Interesting article on the role of melatonin and sleep in Covid 19.

Its a curious article and the first time I have read of someone who takes more exogenous melatonin than I do although I don't do this every night. I did, however, take 45mg last night at about 4am, but I target taking it around once a week. I did note that the media reports of Trump's covid referred to melatonin.

It is an area that needs more rigorous study. I think one of the difficulties is that with the circadian cycle and other associated elements the time you take particular supplements if you do (Melatonin, Vitamin D) can either work with the body (particularly the Pineal Gland) or against the body. If it works with the bodies internal system you get better outcomes. There is a similar issue with other vitamins (A,B,C,E) in that it is best not to take them daily.

[look]

I suggest to read this tweeter. Please roll the image until Robin Monotti's post (31 dec.)

https://twitter.com/michaelyeadon3

Oh yeah? Why's that then?

(I really shouldn't!)

can any... why early treatment kits...

[tjh290633]

why early treatment kits...

I always associate that expression with a small room behind the Guard House.

I've never been in, but it featured strongly in our indoctrination talks and film.

TJH

[johnhemming]

Although this was not directly a study into coronavirus and vitamin D it is a study

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/land ... 6/fulltext

Interpretation
Monthly bolus doses of 60 000 IU of vitamin D did not reduce the overall risk of acute respiratory tract infection, but could slightly reduce the duration of symptoms in the general population. These findings suggest that routine vitamin D supplementation of a population that is largely vitamin D replete is unlikely to have a clinically relevant effect on acute respiratory tract infection.

I don't myself think that giving large amounts of Vitamin D infrequently is a good idea. Because of the way it is metabolised it really needs to be taken daily. Whether it should be taken more frequently or not I don't know. Because my focus is on sleep I aim to take it in the morning.

[88V8]

I don't myself think that giving large amounts of Vitamin D infrequently is a good idea. Because of the way it is metabolised it really needs to be taken daily.

Amen to that.
During winter only, we take a daily 1000somethings of Vit D. I don't believe that overdoses of anything are effective, not even chocolate.

On a different note, here is a reference to some (small) studies that postulate a link between long Covid and gut biome.
https://newatlas.com/health-wellbeing/g ... lammation/
But as with so many gut interrelations, it may be hard to distinguish between cause and effect.

I shall continue to put my faith in regular doses of peanut butter and marmalade sandwich.

V8