2019 Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 Discussion

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

1 | ... | 809 | 810 | 811 | 812 | 813 | 814 | 815 | 816 | 817 | 818 | 819 | ... | 2423

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2525405 19-Jul-2020 08:45

mattwnz:

I think the tests will be good on filtering out positive cases coming into NZ. But unless it is 100 percent accurate all incoming visitors will still need to do 14 days quarantine. luckily it is only 14 days imo.

Those antibody tests detect whether the person has been infected in the past - and may (or may not) be immune. They're not for screening for active infection.

ezbee

2405 posts

Uber Geek

#2525534 19-Jul-2020 11:56

Yes the antibody test does provide a different measure, that is very resource light to implement, with quick results.
If you have had an infection , not confirmation on if you are currently actively infected.

Can still build a picture of level of community transmission , monitor changes in groups with antibody tests.
As you can test more often, quickly, you can see changes .
You can use as surveillance of groups, if you see any changes then follow with actual C19 tests.
All without burning limited C19 test resource constantly.

The tests for the actual C19 virus are heavy on resources , swabbing, labs , reagents, time, and money.
You need to travel to a test center , or have trained personnel travel to you.
Priority is to confirm if people are sick due to C19 , to find suspected C19 infection, to isolate and treat, then other sorts of testing last.
C19 tests for surveillance testing are necessarily limited.
General random testing of communities, or other types of monitoring very limited.

I think that is what they mean by game changer.
Antibody test does not impact on existing C19 test resource. You don't need trained test personnel, can even courier tests out.
New additional capability to multiply test capability ( Though different measure ), and light on infrastructure to support.
Just used in a different way , and supports surveillance and other community testing which as been constrained.

If it works as well as indicated.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2525575 19-Jul-2020 12:13

ezbee:

Yes the antibody test does provide a different measure, that is very resource light to implement, with quick results.
If you have had an infection , not confirmation on if you are currently actively infected.

Can still build a picture of level of community transmission , monitor changes in groups with antibody tests.
As you can test more often, quickly, you can see changes .
You can use as surveillance of groups, if you see any changes then follow with actual C19 tests.
All without burning limited C19 test resource constantly.

The tests for the actual C19 virus are heavy on resources , swabbing, labs , reagents, time, and money.
You need to travel to a test center , or have trained personnel travel to you.
Priority is to confirm if people are sick due to C19 , to find suspected C19 infection, to isolate and treat, then other sorts of testing last.
C19 tests for surveillance testing are necessarily limited.
General random testing of communities, or other types of monitoring very limited.

I think that is what they mean by game changer.
Antibody test does not impact on existing C19 test resource. You don't need trained test personnel, can even courier tests out.
New additional capability to multiply test capability ( Though different measure ), and light on infrastructure to support.
Just used in a different way , and supports surveillance and other community testing which as been constrained.

If it works as well as indicated.

I don't see the importance here, unless Im missing something. The priority is testing for active infections, not for who has had it in the past. Lets say Covid gives immunity, do we need to test who they are? No. We know who they are. Lets say immunity doesn't happen or is low, do we need to test so see who has had it? No, as them and everyone else is still a target for the virus, where the protection here is the border control.

DonH

230 posts

Master Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2525583 19-Jul-2020 13:04

There is some evidence that a significant number of people who contract COVID-19 don't show symptoms. They are arguably the greatest risk for community transmission. Widespread community antibody testing will give a much better picture of how prevalent asymptomatic infections are. It's backward-facing but it will help to shape policies for detection and management.

People hear what they see. - Doris Day

ezbee

2405 posts

Uber Geek

#2525585 19-Jul-2020 13:10

tdgeek

Well one topical example I was thinking of, say staff at isolation hotel.
I see cleaning , or lack of, at a key isolation hotel has made the news.
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/guest-says-family-put-risk-lax-cleaning-which-saw-used-ppe-bottles-ground-managed-isolation-facility

I would be urgently looking at staff, they seem to be very vulnerable given usual cost focused business model of the contracted companies.
Lesson from Victoria, don't just focus on returnees at hotels.

So I suppose with low cost , easy, quick, antibody testing you can monitor staff continuously.
If you find about 5% are antibody positive baseline, you can institute measures if this number starts rising over weeks of testing.
Significant increase and you know there are new infections and you can go looking for them and why.

Statistician would have to confirm if this is realistic with 98% accuracy test, for test population size, and daily tests.
This maybe wishful thinking on my part.

Otherwise as per kingdragonfly article a few posts back.
If/When you have a vaccine program, you will need this capability to monitor effectiveness.
Level of antibodies in population, has it done the business , do you have to repeat at 1 or 2 years.

Plus the ability to do mass large population testing to see progress of the virus, how much have we missed in silent transmission.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2525604 19-Jul-2020 13:51

ezbee:

tdgeek

Well one topical example I was thinking of, say staff at isolation hotel.
I see cleaning , or lack of, at a key isolation hotel has made the news.
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/guest-says-family-put-risk-lax-cleaning-which-saw-used-ppe-bottles-ground-managed-isolation-facility

I would be urgently looking at staff, they seem to be very vulnerable given usual cost focused business model of the contracted companies.
Lesson from Victoria, don't just focus on returnees at hotels.

So I suppose with low cost , easy, quick, antibody testing you can monitor staff continuously.
If you find about 5% are antibody positive baseline, you can institute measures if this number starts rising over weeks of testing.
Significant increase and you know there are new infections and you can go looking for them and why.

Statistician would have to confirm if this is realistic with 98% accuracy test, for test population size, and daily tests.
This maybe wishful thinking on my part.

Otherwise as per kingdragonfly article a few posts back.
If/When you have a vaccine program, you will need this capability to monitor effectiveness.
Level of antibodies in population, has it done the business , do you have to repeat at 1 or 2 years.

Plus the ability to do mass large population testing to see progress of the virus, how much have we missed in silent transmission.

Are you saying we might see increased antibody counts for staff? We would know weeks before that, of that, as the staff would be known cases.

If we had a vaccine then yes, most definitely. It just seems to me that doing tests that will basically tick off all the known cases that are already recorded isn't much use. I guess you would pickup the economist Shabeel Equub who thinks he had the virus but didnt get a test just stayed isolated, but again that isnt much use that I can see. The future is the problem not the known past. Unless those with anti bodies and therefore traces of Covid-19 could infect others, but I assume thats not correct.

I see your points, but a data sheet of all these with anti bodies, I can't see thats of any use.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2525607 19-Jul-2020 13:53

DonH:

There is some evidence that a significant number of people who contract COVID-19 don't show symptoms. They are arguably the greatest risk for community transmission. Widespread community antibody testing will give a much better picture of how prevalent asymptomatic infections are. It's backward-facing but it will help to shape policies for detection and management.

That makes sense. OTOH, after Level 4,3, and 2 we are seeing no CT.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

kingdragonfly

11190 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2525614 19-Jul-2020 14:25

From the US religiously conservative deep south Mississippi

ezbee

2405 posts

Uber Geek

#2525615 19-Jul-2020 14:39

Victoria 363 cases , will make mask mandatory in certain areas, Ouch.
NSW limiting airport arrivals, so I guess taking 10's K of students is not in their plan soon.

Key events

55mminutes agoNSW records 18 new cases of coronavirus
1hhour agoFace masks mandatory in Melbourne and Mitchell Shire
1hhour agoVictoria records 363 new cases
4hhours agoNSW Government to introduce stricter limits on airport arrivals
5hhours agoHard lockdown ends for some in Melbourne public housing

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2525658 19-Jul-2020 16:41

NSW is saying 350 arrivals per day in SYD...

I think everyone clamouring, asking, shouting for New Zealand to open up are just going in the wrong way.

Scott3

3964 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2525681 19-Jul-2020 17:37

freitasm:

NSW is saying 350 arrivals per day in SYD...

I think everyone clamouring, asking, shouting for New Zealand to open up are just going in the wrong way.

I think there are a relatively small number of vocal people who want the borders opened up in a hurry (mostly the travel, tourism, and education industries, plus those who want offshore workers, and a small number of people on work visa's that got stuck outside of NZ).

A couple of months ago it looked like we wouldn't go back into lock-down if we got covid-19 back into NZ, and would simply manage it like japan for example.

Recent events had made the above look like a stupid idea, and that stamping out covid-19 via economically expensive lockdowns would be back on the cards (as per Victoria).

Even with managed isolation, risk is proportionate to volume. Triple the number of people coming in, and you triple the risk of the following for example:

A hotel worker getting sick, and passing the virus to the community
A cabin crew member getting sick en route (they are exempt from isolation)
somebody in isolation getting sick from the elevator buttons on the last day of their stay.

The case in china where a single elevator ride alone caused a 71 person cluster highlights the risk that we carry with every person we allow into NZ. Could have been New Zealand, and somebody arriving for isolation just prior to somebody leaving isolation at the same hotel.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/122111579/coronavirus-asymptomatic-womans-elevator-ride-causes-71person-cluster

At the moment the main thing keeping us safe is a low volume of travelers.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2525773 19-Jul-2020 17:59

freitasm:

NSW is saying 350 arrivals per day in SYD...

I think everyone clamouring, asking, shouting for New Zealand to open up are just going in the wrong way.

It's incredibly selfish / greedy.

If it comes with some cry about "freedom", then it's absolute hypocrisy. A fundamental purpose of government is to protect its citizens. Protecting the most vulnerable (old and infirm) should be paramount. Granting privilege to the already privileged (those who are young and or wealthy enough to be able to enjoy overseas holidays) should take a back seat.

Essential workers can get in. People should stop moaning - and be thankful.

mattwnz

20147 posts

Uber Geek

#2525774 19-Jul-2020 18:00

I think NZs hope to remain covid free, is to require ALL incoming travelers to have some form of reliable test before boarding the plane to NZ. This then reduces the risk of someone coming into NZ with it, and the additional costs and risks this poses to the NZ community. I am not sure if there is currently a breakdown on the numbers based on country they came from, but some countries appear to pose a far higher risk of having someone with the virus than others. There are some new tests that are apparently 98% accurate, which could certainly be good enough to filter people out. I have seen comments about countries forging results, but that should be easily able to be tracked down, by the numbers coming in that test positive. If airlines do this, then they could ban those airlines.

I see National also has a policy to charge people coming in if they ever get in , based on the fact that they also claim that NZers have had enough time to return. This is repeating Australias reasoning for charging. But they will have payment system in place for those people who can't afford to. I think Labour is planning something similar too to share the costs, so I can't see the two main parties disagreeing on this.

Apparently the cost so far has been 80 million to NZ taxerpayers. Over the coming years it may in the hundreds of millions. That isn't insignificant.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2525797 19-Jul-2020 18:53

mattwnz:

I think NZs hope to remain covid free, is to require ALL incoming travelers to have some form of reliable test before boarding the plane to NZ. This then reduces the risk of someone coming into NZ with it, and the additional costs and risks this poses to the NZ community. I am not sure if there is currently a breakdown on the numbers based on country they came from, but some countries appear to pose a far higher risk of having someone with the virus than others. There are some new tests that are apparently 98% accurate, which could certainly be good enough to filter people out. I have seen comments about countries forging results, but that should be easily able to be tracked down, by the numbers coming in that test positive. If airlines do this, then they could ban those airlines.

I see National also has a policy to charge people coming in if they ever get in , based on the fact that they also claim that NZers have had enough time to return. This is repeating Australias reasoning for charging. But they will have payment system in place for those people who can't afford to. I think Labour is planning something similar too to share the costs, so I can't see the two main parties disagreeing on this.

Apparently the cost so far has been 80 million to NZ taxerpayers. Over the coming years it may in the hundreds of millions. That isn't insignificant.

Bold 1

Is this test at the departure lounge and result in 10 minutes or an hour? Then that can work. It doesn't reduce the cost as they will still go to MIQ.

Bold 2

I "think" the difference is Nats will charge everyone, whereas Labour will charge those that "chose" to leave and return. Clearly if I go to the US for a jaunt tomorrow I would expect to pay All not some of the cost. Kiwis have a right to return, do you want to tax that right? If anyone overseas wants to return we can't tax that. Its not as simple as selling the lawnmower and BBQ and booking a flight. Job needs to be sorted out, or a new job sorted out, assets to dissolve, leases to end, longer term people have a lot of loose ends to tie up. Nats can say rush home to avoid the tax, but how can you do that when flights are rationed to match MIQ demands? Im sure there is a simple equation that means that those that want to come home and have a lot to coordinate have space to do that, and those that can jump on a flight within 24 hours but chose to wait and see can pay.

Its not that simple. How much does a couple with kids and needs time etc to manage to leave pay? $3000 x 4 or 5? A nice arrival tax.

It needs to be case by case

kingdragonfly

11190 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2525802 19-Jul-2020 19:04

A bit dry at the beginning, but gets better about midway through. 6 minutes.

ARS-CoV-2 May Have Another Door Into Cells

SciShow, filmed 15 July

Researchers think the virus behind COVID-19 may have multiple ways into cells—which could help us understand how it behaves.

1 | ... | 809 | 810 | 811 | 812 | 813 | 814 | 815 | 816 | 817 | 818 | 819 | ... | 2423