Experts are considering a proposal for Matt Hancock’s “antibody certificate” in the UK. They say that antibody tests do not prove that you are immune from the disease. We don’t know enough about this disease. From experience with other diseases, people with antibodies may be infected a second time (with the same virus strain) and die from the disease.
Such certificates give false reassurance, especially to the public who consider them completely safe from reinfection (or at least not yet known to be secure). They may also encourage dangerous behaviors, such as those who intentionally try to get COVID-19 to pass the test and return to work. Some people who intentionally try to get COVID19 need ventilation or die.
Remember before you go any further. You can protect yourself from this disease. It seems to be transmitted only through large droplets coming out of the mouth when coughing, sneezing, or talking, and these fall out of the air in seconds. Does not float in the air with small droplets like flu [except for certain medical procedures].
To protect yourself from this illness, wash your hands thoroughly, stay away from coughing, sneezing, or speaking people and avoid habits of touching your eyes, nose, or mouth. except for). By doing so, you may still get the flu and some colds, but are protected from COVID-19.
This is another article I am writing to support the people I support Facebook Doomsday Riot GroupFind us, because sometimes such stories are scary enough to feel suicide.
Share with scientists, politicians and decision makers, especially in the UK, to help those who can help with this.
3 types of test-PCR, antigen, antibody
The three types of tests are antibodies, antigens and PCR.
PCR test Test for viral RNA. To test it, they copy it into DNA and then test it in the lab. This has to be done in the lab, but there are machines that automate testing and speed up testing. It detects viruses directly and is the main virus currently in operation.
(PCR is Polymerase chain reaction This is a way to make small, fast copies of DNA and make research easier.
Antigen testWhen ready, test proteins on the virus surface. They are faster than PCR tests that use antibodies to bind and detect the virus. It can be performed as a point-of-care test similar to a pregnancy test, and the virus itself can be detected again.
Antibody testAlready exists and tests the body’s response to the virus. IgM is the first response of the body within 5-10 days of infection and peaks 21 days later. IgG is found 10-14 days after infection, which is a rapid response, reacts within 24-48 hours after re-infection, and is hopefully preventable.
If both IgM and IgG are high, the patient is likely to be within the first month of infection, and the patient is probably protected from reinfection (although it is not yet clearly known at this time) You.
For more information,
Antibody tests have been developed and are already being used to find out how many people are testing, and results should return within weeks of research in China.
The antibody test was proposed to be used as proof that Matt Hancock is controversially safe from the virus. It takes them beyond what they intended. The main reason to develop these tests is to investigate where the virus is in society, better understand how it is spreading, and what we can do to stop it Because
Antibodies indicate that you have been exposed to COVID-19-but do not know if they will protect you from reinfection
The presence of antibodies indicates that you have been exposed to COVID-19 in the past, but that does not mean that you are immune to re-infection.
Whether antibodies successfully protect you from reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19, and to what extent, we need to know more about the disease.
It also affects some diseases where antibodies can make secondary infections worse. Dengue is an example. The first infection is usually mild. The second infection of dengue can be fatal. The antibodies in this case actually exacerbate the disease a second time.
According to the NHS:
In rare cases, dengue is very serious and can be life-threatening. This is known as severe dengue or hemorrhagic fever.
People who have previously experienced dengue are thought to be at increased risk for severe dengue fever when reinfected. It is very rare for a traveler to get it.
High levels of antibody protect against dengue, but low levels can make it more dangerous.
It is believed that low levels of antibodies cannot neutralize or kill invading viruses. However, they bind to them and effectively direct them to susceptible cells that replicate the virus.
There is still no reason to assume that the virus responsible for COVID-19 is similar to the virus responsible for dengue fever.
However, SARS has a similar effect, and one must be aware of COVID-19, which is closely related to SARS. It is also a pitfall in vaccine development that requires attention when developing a vaccine for COVDI-19. The quote describes an example of animals or people receiving test vaccines for various diseases that developed more serious diseases when they were exposed to the virus that the test vaccine should protect against. . There are various ways to do this. Scientific discussions are underway whether any of these apply to the virus that causes COVID-19, and if so, how they affect the success of the vaccine candidate.
Since the 1960s, tests of vaccine candidates for diseases such as dengue, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have shown paradoxical phenomena. Some animals or people exposed to the virus after receiving the vaccine developed more severe disease than those who were not vaccinated (1). The immune system, primed with the vaccine, in certain cases appeared to initiate an apparent response to natural infection. “That’s what we want to avoid,” says Kantha Sabbarao, director of the World Health Organization Cooperative Research Center on Influenza in Melbourne, Australia.
This immune flashback, or so-called immune boost, manifests itself in a variety of ways, including antibody-dependent boosting (ADE), a process in which the virus uses antibodies to help transmit. Or a category that includes cell-based enhancement, allergic inflammation caused by Th2 immunopathology. In some cases, the expansion process can overlap. Scientific debate is ongoing on whether any of these phenomena, the exact mechanism remains unknown, and how new coronaviruses and how they affect the success of vaccine candidates. Act on?
COVID-19 is a new disease, many of which are unknown. It is not yet clear whether antibodies protect you or for how long they can make secondary infections more lethal.
This is one of many things that need to be established in more research. Antibodies to coronavirus often do not confer lifelong immunity. You may need to repeat the vaccination, or you may need to carefully design the vaccine so that it does not actually cause the production of harmful antibodies.
The development of the SARS vaccine required this level of care. One of the earliest candidate vaccines for SARS stimulated the immune system of vaccinated animals and attacked their lung tissue. They could solve this by eliciting an immune response to one spike, not a whole virus, but a small part of the virus.
Hotez was one of the researchers who began investigating potential vaccines when the coronavirus, SARS, emerged in China and spread worldwide nearly 20 years ago. Early tests of his candidate witnessed how immune cells in vaccinated animals attacked lung tissue. “I thought” Oh crap “,” he recalled, pointing out his first fear that a safe vaccine might not be possible again.
But his team has modified their approach. Instead of producing the whole virus spike protein, we created a small part of the virus (the part that attaches to human cells, called the receptor binding domain). Subsequent animal studies have shown that this strategy provides the desired protection without unwanted immune enhancement. With funding from the NIH, Hotez’s team continued to manufacture the vaccine and was ready for clinical trials.
Disadvantages of earlier immunity ideas
For this reason, the whole idea of ”population immunity” has been criticized by experts from the beginning. Antibodies to the virus that causes COVID-19 have not yet been proven to confer immunity. It may pass through the population again, each infected multiple times. You do not need to mutate to a new strain of the virus to do this.
“Hard immunity” has been criticized from the beginning for its ethics. If enough people become infected because of the “herd immunity,” many will die. If you can control them, you will not die. It is thanks to them that we tried to suppress it.
Another drawback of this idea of passing the virus through our population until the development of “hard immunity” is that the UK is a source of seeds of infection worldwide.
Other countries follow a different policy of controlling viruses wherever they occur. It can be more effective if there is a global coordinated strategy and all countries act together to try to control the virus.
Instead, what is happening now is that most countries are trying to suppress it, while the UK, Netherlands and Sweden are only running it on their population and trying to delay it.
Young people should not intentionally try to get COVID-19-this is a significant risk for yourself and others
The notion that COVID-19 parties willingly return COVID-19 to work is of particular concern.
For example, if only one in 1,000 young people under the age of 40 died, the disease could be stopped and one in 1,000 did not need to die. The actual number of deaths under the age of 40 is not well known, but various numbers are around 1 or 2 per 1000.
On the other hand, even a few percent of young people need to be hospitalized for a disease that is much more serious than the usual flu (at least 14% in early US figures).
A significant number of young people need to spend weeks unconscious on a ventilator and eventually recover. It may take months for the lungs to fully recover after several weeks under ventilator. Some of them die sadly (at least 2% require intensive care and one thousandth die from early CDC figures).
When young people get it, their contact with the elderly is also at risk. Nearly 20 in 100 out of more than 90 patients die from the disease.
As one anonymous doctor put it on NewsWeek:
“You’re fine. You rarely even sneeze or cough, but you’re walking around and unknowingly kill some old women. Is it fair? Tell me.”
Since COVID-19 is not in the air, you will probably infect people you know, or at least those who have been in close or prolonged contact. Then they infect someone else or someone else-in that way you can kill those two old women without knowing them or even not knowing them.
“Not taking the elderly or their deaths as a serious problem is a moral breakdown.”
We roughly calculated the number of doctors who would die if the infection rate fell to 50%. That is about 1000. This does not include retired retirees and is based on the distribution of those already working as doctors. If the infection rate reaches 50%, I think 750 nurses will die (although the total number is the same, nurses tend to retire as younger, so older people are less likely). This calculation is approximate, but it is enough to give you a rough idea.
In one recent article, one of these theorists states that even if 10% of people over the age of 80 die, at that age 10% die any year for any reason, anyway. I think some of these theorists need training in basic ethics and moral philosophy. I edit the name of the professor in this quote from the BBC article, especially since no one wants to pick it out. But recently, many theorists have said this. Very troubled.
About 600,000 people die each year in the UK. Frail and elderly people are at greatest risk, as are infections with the coronavirus.
Nearly 10% of people over 80 will die next year, professor [..]The University of Cambridge points out that the risk of death from coronavirus infection is about the same.
This is not the same. It is deeply unethical. These people are important. They could have lived for more than 10 years and know what plans they had, what they could achieve, and who would have been able to help if they were not this short !
Put another way, if there is a 10% chance of dying in that year, they are almost 50% likely to live by the age of 87. If they are healthy, there is a 75% chance of reaching 87 and life expectancy is 94 (you survived what you might have killed before, so you are older And they may have lived in more than 100 for everything you know.
Allowing someone to die from illness is not OK (but many are not) since they can die of something instead. Doctors do everything they can to save their lives, but this isn’t because the patient is 80 years old, so there’s a 10% chance of dying that year anyway.
Dr Tedros states this:
No, this issue is very important, especially for the elderly and the elderly. If something is going to hurt the world, it is moral corruption. And not treating the elderly or their deaths as a serious problem is one of moral breakdowns. And Mike said it. Individuals, ages, and humans do not matter. And because the virus kills the elderly and only the elderly, it’s actually a pain to see them when they want to move on to mitigation.
That is dangerous. Every country has a duty to save you, whether you kill the young, the old, or the elderly. Therefore, we do not raise the white flag. Do not give up. Fight. To protect our children, to protect our elderly. After all, it is human life. By the way, I’ve said this many times, but if you don’t care about individuals who may be seniors or juniors, you can’t care for millions. Old and young.
That’s what WHO is saying. And because of the high mortality from this outbreak for all countries, a comprehensive approach, a mixed approach, and an approach that can help contain this outbreak are very important. Should not be categorized by youth or seniors. Of course, it’s fine to do it to understand epidemiology. But I think all life is important to action. Every personal life is important. It doesn’t matter if you don’t care about one individual, young or old. That’s why we say this is moral corruption. Moral corruption of society.
If something is going to hurt the world, it is moral corruption. And not treating the elderly or their deaths as a serious problem is one of moral breakdowns. “
Korea, China and Singapore have all shown that they can restrain and stop it.
You don’t need immunity to Ebola-this is the rarest respiratory disease that can be contained in the same way
You can stop this. Lockdown by WHO must be part of a combined strategy that looks for viruses, tests everyone with symptoms, isolates all from family members if confirmed, and tracks and quarantines all contacts . Since then, the number of new cases per day has declined rapidly, with Korea and Wuhan in China dropping by about 90% in two weeks.
text: South Korea reduced cases by 10 times per day in two weeks
Many of the remaining cases are imported from other countries.
China was the same
Text: China reduced cases per day 10-fold in two weeks
Since it takes time from infection to symptoms and diagnosis, you can see the effect of the measures up to two weeks before.
If we start with a few cases, we need to separate them, not the whole society. Lockdown can end soon, probably in the next 4 weeks or so (you’ll notice the effects later). 2 weeks later, 4 weeks will be greatly reduced)
Everyone knows that it is not necessary to develop herd immunity to Ebola.
However, people are not used to the idea that Ebola can contain and stop respiratory illness. Experts thought this was not possible. But China, Singapore, South Korea, and other countries like Spain and Italy now show that this can be contained and stopped.
You don’t need to find anyone
For simplicity, assume that each new person is on average infected with two more people.
Next, 100 cases infected 200 cases, followed by 400 and 800 cases, and a total of 1500 cases are currently infected. It doesn’t take long to reach tens of thousands. If you have time to double every three days, you will multiply about ten times every ten days.
If three-quarters of these transmission chains can be broken by contact tracking and separation, the results will vary greatly.
This time, 100 cases infect 50 (3/4 of 200), 25 (3/4 of 100 cases) actually infect 13, 6, 3, 2, 1 and then end To do.
It ends in about 200 cases. This gives a 10-fold reduction in time per case every 10 days.
In the UK, there were 4,450 new cases on April 3. Because these are primarily hospitalized cases, including mild cases (usually there are four mild cases per patient in the hospital) can result in approximately 22,000 new cases.
They are Diagnosed April 3. Looking back here, many of them were infected more than two weeks ago. Numbers Infected It is much more likely today, but rarely diagnosed for a week or more.
The number of cases per day in the UK has increased about 10-fold every other week. Their increase seems to have slowed down for several days-but they are mainly testing inpatient cases, so they are uncertain (eg, as the number increases, are fewer cases observed?).
Cases continue to increase by a factor of 10 per two weeks (for example), and estimating the delay from infection to two weeks of diagnosis, 200,000 people could be infected today. Hopefully it’s not like that and lockdown has actually greatly reduced their number.
To illustrate how this works for illustration purposes (because there is no way to know the true number), let’s say that 50,000 new cases are infected today.
With that number, if you start discovering, tracking, quarantining and quarantining cases today and achieve a 1/10 reduction per 2 weeks, you will get 5,000 per day after 2 weeks, 500 after 4 weeks, Six weeks later, six weeks. Now it has dropped to 50 and another month has passed. The remaining cases are hospitalization and isolation only, no new cases.
Due to the delay between infection and diagnosis, the number of cases per day will continue to increase to 50,000 per day in two weeks from now (already confined because it is already infected but has not shown any symptoms) Is reduced to 5,000 and 500. 50, 5, then none.
By the time you return to hundreds of new cases per day, you can probably unlock.
If they are almost all identified and separated and their contacts tracked-those who are sick if the public is properly hygiene to protect themselves and self-reports to the fever clinic Only the virus and its contacts that can return focus to isolation.
In fact, quarantine seems to prevent more than 75% of cases. In Singapore, almost all cases still in contact are contacts, and testing for those seeking medical help for symptoms of fever or pneumonia cannot be overlooked (asymptomatic non-proliferation Excluding the person). So, if you do this thoroughly, you can run faster.
There is also one way to do this very quickly. It is to test everyone symptomatic or asymptomatic. In one Italian town, 3,300 people were infected, from 3% to 0.3% in two weeks, with no new cases. This is not a one-tenth reduction in new cases per day. That is a one-tenth reduction in the total number of cases still ill.
This is a small town of only 3,300, but also promising for a small country that can test all its residents. In some countries, you may try the same method and see if it works. Iceland is testing all people, with or without symptoms. See me:
The method is especially useful in hospitals, nursing homes, dentists or clinics. Regularly examine all patients and staff to determine if they are symptomatic or asymptomatic, and isolate the infected with covid-19 until everyone is completely gone.
I personally need to adopt the same method in the UK because the situation in the UK is very urgent. You need to find a way to run millions of tests in one day. First clean up hospitals, clinics, doctors, social workers and nursing homes. Next, test everyone with mild symptoms in the general community and, as the test increases, test everyone symptomatic or asymptomatic. It would be the fastest way to reduce our case and also contain cases from our rest and the world. You can build a new hospital with thousands of beds in two weeks. How many tests can I run to make the most of my ingenuity and find cases using the same level of funding?
Britain is proud of its creativity, wit, and ability to defeat the jaw of defeat. This is a chance to show us what we can do! Testing of these numbers has reduced numbers even faster than in Korea and China, and has saved thousands of lives not only in the UK, but around the world. I will cover this in me
We have to do this. Even though there are 1 million people already using COVID-19 in the UK, they need to act as quickly as possible to protect and contain the remaining 65 million. Of the world.
I also see
Please remember again. I don’t think this can be overstated.
Short summaries for sharing
This is a criticism of the UK government proposing an “antibody certificate” that shows that you have COVID-19 and can return to work and interact normally with others.
This is not true because having an antibody does not guarantee that current knowledge of the virus is safe from infection. In the current state of knowledge, those who have COVID-19 may even be at higher risk for a second infection than those who do not.
This will encourage dangerous behaviors, such as intentionally trying to get COVID-19, and risk your life returning to work.