SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

How typically short sighted of our prime minister to be pressuring workers to go back to working in their normal places of work. Instead of working from home.
A recent survey of too 50 UK companies said they had no intention or need for this. And they were perfectly happy with the current working from home arrangements.
And all said that productivity was either the same as or better than normal.

If this is the so called new normal, then we had better get used to it.
Eventually, adjustments are going to have to be made to how things were in the past.

Corona virus is still a very big risk with new cases on the increase.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
You’re kidding me right, especially @Pogue Mahone? It’s well known that showering every day strips natural oils and natural bacteria from the skin and can even cause skin problems.
Educate yourselves for God’s sake, stop wasting so much water and stop stripping your skin.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/showering-daily-is-it-necessary-2019062617193

https://www.healthline.com/health/beauty-skin-care/how-often-should-you-shower

https://www.considerable.com/health/healthy-living/shower-health/
Click to expand...

None of those links say you shouldn’t shower daily. They say you don’t need to shower daily. Which is true. If you (and more importantly, other people) don’t mind an occasional waft of BO.

Obviously, if you have super sensitive skin or bad eczema you might want to dial it back a bit. Which is not an issue for the vast majority of people.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
You’re kidding me right, especially @Pogue Mahone? It’s well known that showering every day strips natural oils and natural bacteria from the skin and can even cause skin problems.
Educate yourselves for God’s sake, stop wasting so much water and stop stripping your skin.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/showering-daily-is-it-necessary-2019062617193

https://www.healthline.com/health/beauty-skin-care/how-often-should-you-shower

https://www.considerable.com/health/healthy-living/shower-health/
Click to expand...

I've never had any patches of dry skin, plus I like a shower.

ot one of those artiles say its bad for you, they say it could be in some people.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
None of those links say you shouldn’t shower daily. They say you don’t need to shower daily. Which is true. If you (and more importantly, other people) don’t mind an occasional waft of BO.

Obviously, if you have super sensitive skin or bad eczema you might want to dial it back a bit. Which is not an issue for the vast majority of people.
Click to expand...

They all say you are stripping oils and natural bacteria from your skin as well as wasting water.
But if you’re all stinky fecks, crack on, better for the rest of us.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
They all say you are stripping oils and natural bacteria from your skin as well as wasting water.
But if you’re all stinky fecks, crack on, better for the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Going out on a limb here but I reckon in any argument about the merits of daily showers it’s not the recently showered people that stink...

I’m also curious about what you think might happen if you lost some of the bacteria and oils you’re risking BO to protect?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Going out on a limb here but I reckon in any argument about the merits of daily showers it’s not the recently showered people that stink...
Click to expand...

:lol:

To be fair, as a runner I have to shower pretty much every day. But I don’t stink when I have a couple of days without a run and skip over a day. That’s a special kind of stinky BO-ness that kicks in so quick, and shite deo.

But back to the original point, which was my retort to a poster who claims good hygiene means you have to wash your body every day, no it absolutely does not. If you wanna argue with the experts on that, go ahead like.

You lot are actually arguing with experts here like. This isn’t RAB’s own research :)

Pogue Mahone said:
I’m also curious about what you think might happen if you lost some of the bacteria and oils you’re risking BO to protect?
Click to expand...

The harvard peeps make clear what that can do to your skin.


Normal, healthy skin maintains a layer of oil and a balance of “good” bacteria and other microorganisms. Washing and scrubbing removes these, especially if the water is hot. As a result:

  • Skin may become dry, irritated, or itchy.
  • Dry, cracked skin may allow bacteria and allergens to breach the barrier skin is supposed to provide, allowing skin infections and allergic reactions to occur.
  • Antibacterial soaps can actually kill off normal bacteria. This upsets the balance of microorganisms on the skin and encourages the emergence of hardier, less friendly organisms that are more resistant to antibiotics.
  • Our immune systems need a certain amount of stimulation by normal microorganisms, dirt, and other environmental exposures in order to create protective antibodies and “immune memory.” This is one reason why some pediatricians and dermatologists recommend against daily baths for kids. Frequent baths or showers throughout a lifetime may reduce the ability of the immune system to do its job.
And there could be other reasons to lose your enthusiasm for the daily shower: some people suggest that the water with which we clean ourselves may contain salts, heavy metals, chlorine, fluoride, pesticides, and other chemicals. These may cause problems, too.
Click to expand...

The bolded part fits in nicely to getting this thread back on track.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
The bolded part fits in nicely to getting this thread back on track.
Click to expand...

Bolded part is highly speculative and only relevant to very young kids whose immune systems aren’t fully developed. Basically, if you’re old enough to have BO, you’re too old to have any sort of immunological benefit from being stanky.

Although the forced social distancing that results from cheesy armpits could theoretically keep viruses at bay...
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
The experts here said a few times that cases like this are to be expected in such a widespread pandemic. If they become more and more frequent it’s a worry, but not at this stage.
Click to expand...

It’s not the reinfection that worries me. It’s the fact they got a minor illness the first time but were hospitalised the second time round. They managed to shake off the virus once but didn’t get any protective immunity as a result. That’s terrible news for covid immunity in general and for vaccine development.

It’s to be expected that reinfections will be very rare in the first few months of this pandemic. Only very few people will be exposed twice and even less of them will be exposed for a second time sufficiently long after the first dose for their immunity to have worn off. There’s likely to be many more similar examples in the weeks/months ahead. We have to hope the Honk Kong dude’s experience is the norm and this person (who was only 25) has some sort of previously unknown immune deficiency.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
It’s not the reinfection that worries me. It’s the fact they got a minor illness the first time but were hospitalised the second time round. They managed to shake off the virus once but didn’t get any protective immunity as a result. That’s terrible news for covid immunity in general and for vaccine development.
Click to expand...

Do you know if there is a virus/bacteria that is known to adapt very quickly to medications?
 
JPRouve said:
Do you know if there is a virus/bacteria that is known to adapt very quickly to medications?
Click to expand...

A specific type of microbe that becomes resistant very quickly? I actually couldn’t name one. I’d say the quicker they mutate the quicker they become resistant. And coronaviruses are supposed to be relatively stable.
 
UK 9 deaths 1276 cases

Regarding the Nevada case. With false positives and negatives, out of millions some will slip through. With so few reinfections still, I'd be tempted to say the Nevada person didn't have it to begin with?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
A specific type of microbe that becomes resistant very quickly? I actually couldn’t name one. I’d say the quicker they mutate the quicker they become resistant. And coronaviruses are supposed to be relatively stable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's my question. I wouldn't know where to look for whether it is related to humans or animals.
 
Buster15 said:
How typically short sighted of our prime minister to be pressuring workers to go back to working in their normal places of work. Instead of working from home.
A recent survey of too 50 UK companies said they had no intention or need for this. And they were perfectly happy with the current working from home arrangements.
And all said that productivity was either the same as or better than normal.

If this is the so called new normal, then we had better get used to it.
Eventually, adjustments are going to have to be made to how things were in the past.

Corona virus is still a very big risk with new cases on the increase.
Click to expand...

You can't ignore the effect it has on the wider ecosystem, though.

People that own e.g. small corner shops in a major business district are currently taking on significant debt, chipping away at their lives' savings and struggling to make ends meet day to day. That's a very real thing. My step mum's gone from planning for a comfortable retirement in a few years' time after building up a business for almost 2 decades, to the likelihood of losing both. Yes it doesn't matter that much whether office workers are at home or in the office and on balance, the risk of infection spread doesn't make sense if you consider only them. It's great that people like me are very happy with the working from home arrangements but that's hardly the end of story.

If we are moving towards working from home being a regular thing for 3x, 4x, 5x as many people as before - roughly 6% of the workforce mainly worked from home pre-pandemic - then there will need to be significant shifts in how we design cities and how businesses build around that, no question. However the pace of change makes a difference, like it does e.g. for climate change. The economy can cope with a gradual transition to that new mode of working but a sudden, dramatic and sustained shift to an entirely different model will have devastating consequences for literally millions of people.

Speaking of surveys, a recent one suggests why the UK are being a bit more proactive about it than others: other countries' governments don't face that problem of "ghost towns" because most people are going back to work. Are people more at risk going back to the office in the UK than France? It seems unlikely. So either people in France have got the risk-reward profile completely wrong, or there's other factors to consider here.
 
Brwned said:
You can't ignore the effect it has on the wider ecosystem, though.

People that own e.g. small corner shops in a major business district are currently taking on significant debt, chipping away at their lives' savings and struggling to make ends meet day to day. That's a very real thing. My step mum's gone from planning for a comfortable retirement in a few years' time after building up a business for almost 2 decades, to the likelihood of losing both. Yes it doesn't matter that much whether office workers are at home or in the office and on balance, the risk of infection spread doesn't make sense if you consider only them. It's great that people like me are very happy with the working from home arrangements but that's hardly the end of story.

If we are moving towards working from home being a regular thing for 3x, 4x, 5x as many people as before - roughly 6% of the workforce mainly worked from home pre-pandemic - then there will need to be significant shifts in how we design cities and how businesses build around that, no question. However the pace of change makes a difference, like it does e.g. for climate change. The economy can cope with a gradual transition to that new mode of working but a sudden, dramatic and sustained shift to an entirely different model will have devastating consequences for literally millions of people.

Speaking of surveys, a recent one suggests why the UK are being a bit more proactive about it than others: other countries' governments don't face that problem of "ghost towns" because most people are going back to work. Are people more at risk going back to the office in the UK than France? It seems unlikely. So either people in France have got the risk-reward profile completely wrong, or there's other factors to consider here.
Click to expand...

Yeah, agree with all of that. A shift away from millions of commuters swarming in and out of city centres every day is a wonderful thing, for all sorts of reasons. If that shift happens as rapidly as this one then it could be catastrophic for the economy.
 
redshaw said:
Regarding the Nevada case. With false positives and negatives, out of millions some will slip through. With so few reinfections still, I'd be tempted to say the Nevada person didn't have it to begin with?
Click to expand...

There's also the potential for the person to get the dominant strain in America the first time and were unfortunate to get a strain from another part of the world when re-infected.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
It’s not the reinfection that worries me. It’s the fact they got a minor illness the first time but were hospitalised the second time round. They managed to shake off the virus once but didn’t get any protective immunity as a result. That’s terrible news for covid immunity in general and for vaccine development.

It’s to be expected that reinfections will be very rare in the first few months of this pandemic. Only very few people will be exposed twice and even less of them will be exposed for a second time sufficiently long after the first dose for their immunity to have worn off. There’s likely to be many more similar examples in the weeks/months ahead. We have to hope the Honk Kong dude’s experience is the norm and this person (who was only 25) has some sort of previously unknown immune deficiency.
Click to expand...

I think its quite clear that COVID can really take its toll on some people even after they have recovered, a second infection on an already weak immune system is a very scary thought.
 
Our (Slovenia) national secretary (who is also a physician) said today that we will have a vaccine available by November and that healthcare workers and elderly will likely get it. Are we getting the Russian thing or is the legit vaccine ready to roll out? :confused:
 
Brwned said:
You can't ignore the effect it has on the wider ecosystem, though.

People that own e.g. small corner shops in a major business district are currently taking on significant debt, chipping away at their lives' savings and struggling to make ends meet day to day. That's a very real thing. My step mum's gone from planning for a comfortable retirement in a few years' time after building up a business for almost 2 decades, to the likelihood of losing both. Yes it doesn't matter that much whether office workers are at home or in the office and on balance, the risk of infection spread doesn't make sense if you consider only them. It's great that people like me are very happy with the working from home arrangements but that's hardly the end of story.

If we are moving towards working from home being a regular thing for 3x, 4x, 5x as many people as before - roughly 6% of the workforce mainly worked from home pre-pandemic - then there will need to be significant shifts in how we design cities and how businesses build around that, no question. However the pace of change makes a difference, like it does e.g. for climate change. The economy can cope with a gradual transition to that new mode of working but a sudden, dramatic and sustained shift to an entirely different model will have devastating consequences for literally millions of people.

Speaking of surveys, a recent one suggests why the UK are being a bit more proactive about it than others: other countries' governments don't face that problem of "ghost towns" because most people are going back to work. Are people more at risk going back to the office in the UK than France? It seems unlikely. So either people in France have got the risk-reward profile completely wrong, or there's other factors to consider here.
Click to expand...


Pogue Mahone said:
Yeah, agree with all of that. A shift away from millions of commuters swarming in and out of city centres every day is a wonderful thing, for all sorts of reasons. If that shift happens as rapidly as this one then it could be catastrophic for the economy.
Click to expand...

Second both of those sentiments with such a rapid change its not that it 'could be catastrophic for the economy' it most certainly will be and not just in the short term.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Getting back on track.



Shit shit shit shit shit....
Click to expand...


No surprise here, exactly what Sir John Bell said last week and what research has been pointing to for months. Sars cov 2 going to be non vaccinable, like the other corona viruses that cause the common cold and the influenza virus. Almost no one will hold long term immunity to it as our bodies don't see it as very dangerous and it's highly mutable. Any vaccine would be similar to the yearly flu jab at best.

It's also very mild to totally asymptomatic in almost all cases of course. Unless you are elderly and / or have a weakened immune system little to worry about, influenza actually looks more dangerous for young age groups, no more to worry than going for a drive or many other normal activities. Governments have got the response to it completely and totally wrong. Should have been playing it down not terrifying everyone.

The only way out of this crisis is everyone getting it and building immunity to it, likely to be an annual covid season just like influenza. Ultimately it fades in to the background like influenza and the other corona cold viruses have done since they first came in to the human population.
 
Mb194dc said:
No surprise here, exactly what Sir John Bell said last week and what research has been pointing to for months. Sars cov 2 going to be non vaccinable, like the other corona viruses that cause the common cold and the influenza virus. Almost no one will hold long term immunity to it as our bodies don't see it as very dangerous and it's highly mutable. Any vaccine would be similar to the yearly flu jab at best.

It's also very mild to totally asymptomatic in almost all cases of course. Unless you are elderly and / or have a weakened immune system little to worry about, influenza actually looks more dangerous for young age groups, no more to worry than going for a drive or many other normal activities. Governments have got the response to it completely and totally wrong. Should have been playing it down not terrifying everyone.

The only way out of this crisis is everyone getting it and building immunity to it, likely to be an annual covid season just like influenza. Ultimately it fades in to the background like influenza and the other corona cold viruses have done since they first came in to the human population.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you’re saying, except the bolder part. The initial response has saved many lives by stopping the initial bomb of those more susceptible all getting it at once and being denied treatment. Lowering the curve was still necessary as part of a citizen in a society that cares about others and has compassion.

Not to mention that seeing everyone in my city wearing masks, washing hands and respecting people’s personal space is very welcome and we wouldn’t have arrived here without a scare. People have needed educating and reminding of personal higiene and social consciousness for a long time.

It will obviously relax and people will become accustomed to a new normal, but we would never have gotten here had there not been a scare and heightened consciousness in the community.

The hope now is, like you say, we become accustomed to this virus as a people and the threat diminishes as it becomes part of what we face year round. A vaccine could still be a very effective tool in that process though, so it would be foolish to discount its role.
 
Mb194dc said:
No surprise here, exactly what Sir John Bell said last week and what research has been pointing to for months. Sars cov 2 going to be non vaccinable, like the other corona viruses that cause the common cold and the influenza virus. Almost no one will hold long term immunity to it as our bodies don't see it as very dangerous and it's highly mutable. Any vaccine would be similar to the yearly flu jab at best.

It's also very mild to totally asymptomatic in almost all cases of course. Unless you are elderly and / or have a weakened immune system little to worry about, influenza actually looks more dangerous for young age groups, no more to worry than going for a drive or many other normal activities. Governments have got the response to it completely and totally wrong. Should have been playing it down not terrifying everyone.

The only way out of this crisis is everyone getting it and building immunity to it, likely to be an annual covid season just like influenza. Ultimately it fades in to the background like influenza and the other corona cold viruses have done since they first came in to the human population.
Click to expand...

Bits in bold are complete horseshit.
 
Last edited:
cyberman said:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-it-actually-means-and-why-you-shouldnt-panic

Thought id post this to ease some dread. I do think if mass reinfection were possible we would be seeing rafts of cases by now?
Click to expand...

We would. That there are only a handful of potential reinfections strongly suggests immunity is the norm. And in fact there are far fewer than you would expect if most mild cases didn't result in T-cell memory (which wouldn't be outlandish/totally unexpected).
 
Mb194dc said:
No surprise here, exactly what Sir John Bell said last week and what research has been pointing to for months. Sars cov 2 going to be non vaccinable, like the other corona viruses that cause the common cold and the influenza virus. Almost no one will hold long term immunity to it as our bodies don't see it as very dangerous and it's highly mutable. Any vaccine would be similar to the yearly flu jab at best.

It's also very mild to totally asymptomatic in almost all cases of course. Unless you are elderly and / or have a weakened immune system little to worry about, influenza actually looks more dangerous for young age groups, no more to worry than going for a drive or many other normal activities. Governments have got the response to it completely and totally wrong. Should have been playing it down not terrifying everyone.

The only way out of this crisis is everyone getting it and building immunity to it, likely to be an annual covid season just like influenza. Ultimately it fades in to the background like influenza and the other corona cold viruses have done since they first came in to the human population.
Click to expand...

So much bullshit with added feck the elderly.

The research suggests exactly the opposite - a vaccine (probably many) is now close to a certainty and in the likely event that a booster was needed every 1-3 years, just like the flu, so what? That is a great success.
 
I hope Dr John Campbell gets a knighthood.
With my main sources of info about the pandemic being this thread and him, I would have hung myself by now if not for his videos.
 
Wibble said:
So much bullshit with added feck the elderly.

The research suggests exactly the opposite - a vaccine (probably many) is now close to a certainty and in the likely event that a booster was needed every 1-3 years, just like the flu, so what? That is a great success.
Click to expand...

Vaccines are likely to arrive around the end of the year, yeah. I'm now wondering what this means in terms of eventually stalling the virus. My understanding is that it seems to be quite slow in major mutations like similar coronaviruses and despite it infecting millions there's only 6 known major strains so far.

I would have thought that a vaccine is made and tested based upon a particular strain (may be wrong), If so, would we need a few of the vaccines to work to eventually halt it?
 
cyberman said:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-it-actually-means-and-why-you-shouldnt-panic

Thought id post this to ease some dread. I do think if mass reinfection were possible we would be seeing rafts of cases by now?
Click to expand...
Wibble said:
We would. That there are only a handful of potential reinfections strongly suggests immunity is the norm. And in fact there are far fewer than you would expect if most mild cases didn't result in T-cell memory (which wouldn't be outlandish/totally unexpected).
Click to expand...

The very first reported cases were 8 months ago. Immunity could last less than a year (which is very short, as far as immunity is concerned) and not one person on the planet has recovered long enough for us to find out!

It’s to be expected that reinfections are few and far between, with only people that get exceptionally brief immunity (Nevada case was reinfected just six and a half weeks after recovering) popping up on the radar. Time will tell how long the majority are immune for. It could still end up being problematically short.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
It’s to be expected that reinfections are few and far between, with only people that get exceptionally brief immunity (Nevada case was reinfected just six and a half weeks after recovering) popping up on the radar. Time will tell how long the majority are immune for. It could still end up being problematically short.
Click to expand...

We don't know what reinfection means yet though unless I'm missing something with that story? It could have been an entirely different strain which would mean we still have to worry, but only in terms of keeping up with vaccinating the mutations of the vrus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.