2019 Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 Discussion

Forums › Health and fitness › 2019 Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 Discussion

1 | ... | 1152 | 1153 | 1154 | 1155 | 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | ... | 2422

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2656431 15-Feb-2021 06:54

vexxxboy:

the 2 people who travelled in the same car as the couple tested negative ,so Taranaki might have just dodged a bullet and they werent infectious at that stage.

They went to NP on Waitangi weekend, so it's probably too soon to say with certainty that they weren't infectious at the time of the trip.

The two passengers in the car need to be retested in coming days.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2656436 15-Feb-2021 07:13

Still keen to know how someone supposedly tested fortnightly, and who returned (not was tested, but returned a result, so possibly tested at least a day beforehand) a result on the 17th but was working up to the 5th without being retested, and why they were not tested between 31/01 and 5/02 when they were last reported to be at work.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2656437 15-Feb-2021 07:17

GV27:

Still keen to know how someone supposedly tested fortnightly, and who returned (not was tested, but returned a result, so possibly tested at least a day beforehand) a result on the 17th but was working up to the 5th without being retested, and why they were not tested between 31/01 and 5/02 when they were last reported to be at work.

sorry you lost me there. probably media got story wrong would be the main explanation. probably source gave media wrong information is usually why they get it wrong iirc.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2656444 15-Feb-2021 07:34

Batman:

GV27:

Still keen to know how someone supposedly tested fortnightly, and who returned (not was tested, but returned a result, so possibly tested at least a day beforehand) a result on the 17th but was working up to the 5th without being retested, and why they were not tested between 31/01 and 5/02 when they were last reported to be at work.

sorry you lost me there. probably media got story wrong would be the main explanation. probably source gave media wrong information is usually why they get it wrong iirc.

It's far more likely I'm the one who has missed something or else I suspect someone would be jumping up and down about it very visibly this morning.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2656445 15-Feb-2021 07:37

GV27:

Still keen to know how someone supposedly tested fortnightly, and who returned (not was tested, but returned a result, so possibly tested at least a day beforehand) a result on the 17th but was working up to the 5th without being retested, and why they were not tested between 31/01 and 5/02 when they were last reported to be at work.

She was on holiday when she was supposed to be tested.. And quite simply wasn't retested when she went back to work.

This really does show major failings still with our testing/monitoring regime. This specific issue and the failings was discussed in the Roche/Simpson report released by the Govt on right on Xmas, and it seems many things in the report are still not complete.

Why are we still only (very slowly) starting trials of saliva testing now for example? This should be a key part of a monitoring system like it is overseas - is is not a replacement for PCR testing, but is complimentary because it can allow non intrusive daily testing of key front line border and MIQ staff.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2656446 15-Feb-2021 07:39

Batman:

GV27:

Still keen to know how someone supposedly tested fortnightly, and who returned (not was tested, but returned a result, so possibly tested at least a day beforehand) a result on the 17th but was working up to the 5th without being retested, and why they were not tested between 31/01 and 5/02 when they were last reported to be at work.

sorry you lost me there. probably media got story wrong would be the main explanation. probably source gave media wrong information is usually why they get it wrong iirc.

Lost me too, but something about being on leave, there was some assurance given that procedures will be changed and that testing will be required to schedule - even if the staff member is on leave.

The woman and daughter were symptomatic when tested.

As I understand it, part of the reason for extra caution (and L3 lockdown) is that the woman and her daughter became symptomatic at the same time. That does not fit very well with an assumption that the woman contracted the virus through workplace exposure, then passed it on to her daughter - and it raises the possibility that exposure was not related to the workplace and that there's CT elsewhere.

If there is CT elsewhere, the fact that she got tested when symptomatic was "possibly" influenced by the fact that as a worker subject to routine testing, she was more aware of symptoms and the need for testing, others in the community who may be showing symptoms probably less likely to get tested for mild cold/flu-like symptoms.

(the fact that she worked at the company servicing aircraft may just be a coincidence)

Fingers crossed on this.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2656448 15-Feb-2021 07:44

Confirmed now that it's the (more infectious and possibly more lethal) UK strain.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Oblivian

7296 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2656450 15-Feb-2021 07:57

Fred99:
Confirmed now that it's the (more infectious and possibly more lethal) UK strain.

And the other oddities
No link to a miq positive from genome
Not yet clear the transmission path

People pointing at finger to mother's work. But it's yet to be ruled in/out. Will be a little red faced if from say the school or someone totally different not yet tested.

However somewhat disturbing to not have any link to the 1 place inbound traveller's are stopping it at.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2656452 15-Feb-2021 08:08

Fred99:

Confirmed now that it's the (more infectious and possibly more lethal) UK strain.

I might be being pedantic but is there a reason why we can't just call it by the correct name which is the B1.1.7 strain? IMHO calling is the "UK strain" is no different to calling it the Wuhan flu..

invisibleman18

1360 posts

Uber Geek

#2656454 15-Feb-2021 08:10

Eva888: />
Great that you aren’t in Auckland. It’s only for three days so there’s still hope it may open up. When the news came out,was wondering if you were in Auckland. Never mind...it will make the wedding more memorable and something to tell the grandkids.

Hopefully ok in Wellington but still to be seen whether more cases come out from the New Plymouth trip and then potentially how many of those people and their contacts came down here for Six60 this weekend.

Know it's selfish and a wedding can be rescheduled and there's much more important things etc but after all the months of excitement and stress of pulling it all together it will be gutting to potentially have it taken away from us in the few days before.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2656456 15-Feb-2021 08:29

sbiddle:

Fred99:

Confirmed now that it's the (more infectious and possibly more lethal) UK strain.

I might be being pedantic but is there a reason why we can't just call it by the correct name which is the B1.1.7 strain? IMHO calling is the "UK strain" is no different to calling it the Wuhan flu..

There are a few other functionally different strains, and WHO named the disease "Covid 19" for the reason you outline, However "B1.1.7" probably doesn't cut the mustard for easy recognition.

WHO is currently working on nomenclature for the variants removing reference to a location, perhaps wait until that's established - or there'll be even more confusion.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2656459 15-Feb-2021 08:48

sbiddle:
Fred99:

Confirmed now that it's the (more infectious and possibly more lethal) UK strain.

I might be being pedantic but is there a reason why we can't just call it by the correct name which is the B1.1.7 strain? IMHO calling is the "UK strain" is no different to calling it the Wuhan flu..

Same reason they name hurricanes and storms. It’s easier to refer to and remember. What’s wrong with naming it after locations variants are first found in?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2656461 15-Feb-2021 08:50

Geektastic:

sbiddle:

I might be being pedantic but is there a reason why we can't just call it by the correct name which is the B1.1.7 strain? IMHO calling is the "UK strain" is no different to calling it the Wuhan flu..

Same reason they name hurricanes and storms. It’s easier to refer to and remember. What’s wrong with naming it after locations variants are first found in?

Probably because the first name was extensively used with racism implications in a political setting by a liar and racist Trump to serve his motives instead of public health.

Handsomedan

7281 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2656471 15-Feb-2021 09:16

I think the difference here is that people are not calling it by a derogatory name (Wuhan Flu), but giving it an easily-identified moniker (UK variant, Sth African Variant etc)

It's no different than noting the different models of cars for certain markets.

The original Wuhan Flu references had nothing at all to do wit identification - just racist and derogatory remarks in a quite horrible context.

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2656474 15-Feb-2021 09:22

It's (B1.1.7) also called the "Kent" variant.

There's also a new mutation of B1.1.7 variant "B1.1.7+E484K".

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n359

Is this mutation something to worry about?

E484K is called an escape mutation because it helps the virus slip past the body’s immune defences. Ravindra Gupta at the University of Cambridge and colleagues have confirmed that the new B.1.1.7 plus E484K variant substantially increases the amount of serum antibody needed to prevent infection of cells.2 We already know that the B.1.1.7 variant is more transmissible so a combination of a faster spreading virus that is also better at evading immunity is worrying—if it isn’t stopped it would outcompete the older B.1.1.7 variant.

Another concern is that the South African variant might be able to more efficiently reinfect people who have previously been infected with the original form of the virus. Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at Warwick University, said, “This is likely to be, in part, because the E484K mutation may weaken the immune response and also impact the longevity of the neutralising antibody response. So B.1.1.7 variants carrying the E484K mutation may be more efficient at reinfection.”

1 | ... | 1152 | 1153 | 1154 | 1155 | 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | ... | 2422