Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

How does this thing end?

Mass diagnostic testing has really got to be the way forward. Little as I like Hunt, as in not at all, he's been right about that.

Plus what about that supposedly imminent test to tell whether people may have had it (mainly asymptomatically) already? What was that test called again? :oops:

And I'm presuming that those two tests are different? :confused: :oops:

</non-scientist ;) -- sorry >
 
Plus what about that supposedly imminent test to tell whether people may have had it (mainly asymptomatically) already? What was that test called again? :oops:

Antibody test (sometimes called serology test or serological survey because its a blood test). Needs to be validated to make sure the result it gives are accurate enough. This is one type of test, but there are probably many different versions of it (made by different companies etc) and they will need to test each different one to see what works.

Its not just for asymptomatic cases, but if it works really well and humans have a suitable immune response to this virus, even if they lack symptoms, then it should pick those up too.
 
Telegraph (there for the Hunt op-ed) reports that the NHS is about to start using a Covid-19 antiserum (plasma containing antibodies from recovered cases), so mass testing also useful for getting stocks up.

Quarantine, contact tracing, now antiserum: we're going full Victorian at a dizzying rate.
 
There are various possible mid term endings, the Wuhan, relaxation of lockdown after infections and fatalities reduce to a reasonable level of almost zero. But they may have a second wave.

The South Korea ending, well they never had a lockdown, so continuation of the same test test and isolate. Unless there is a failure of this strategy they will continue with it I assume. But the UK assuming we got testing capacity up to required levels could emerge from lockdown into a South Korean environment of testing and tracing. We would still have the option of returning to lock down if infections grew.

And there is the silver bullet, the vaccine, assuming one passes the tests and gains approval and assuming it is manufacturable in the sorts of volumes that will be required.
 
My main current hope is that testing (first diagnostic testing, then hopefully antibody testing too) is expanded massively

We can but dream that this will happen quite soon amongst the population more generally.

That would surely be a real game-changer.

elbows and Azrael have been suggesting in some of their posts that there must be huge behind the scenes pressure for Dr. Science to devise a vaccine, so let's hope similar pressure is being exerted sooner, to get the testing programme properly on the road.

</thread partly bumped because I think 'how soon is the end?' is a hugely important question for everyone ;) :o >
 
anyo
My main current hope is that testing (first diagnostic testing, then hopefully antibody testing too) is expanded massively

We can but dream that this will happen quite soon amongst the population more generally.

That would surely be a real game-changer.

elbows and Azrael have been suggesting in some of their posts that there must be huge behind the scenes pressure for Dr. Science to devise a vaccine, so let's hope similar pressure is being exerted sooner, to get the testing programme properly on the road.

</thread partly bumped because I think 'how soon is the end?' is a hugely important question for everyone ;) :oops: >
I'm wondering how important testing really is, i.e you might be clear on the day of the test but get it the next day, so unless it's daily testing ...
 
anyo

I'm wondering how important testing really is, i.e you might be clear on the day of the test but get it the next day, so unless it's daily testing ...

Indeed, testing without a wider strategy of when and who to test and in a much wider more complex context is more important. People have fixated on the just testing thing as it's easier than the reality of the wider thing, and also plays to personal fears about wanting to know they don't have it.
 
Indeed, testing without a wider strategy of when and who to test and in a much wider more complex context is more important. People have fixated on the just testing thing as it's easier than the reality of the wider thing, and also plays to personal fears about wanting to know they don't have it.

And the antibody test to prove I can go out now because "I'm sure I've had it, definitely, ...oh".
 
Indeed, testing without a wider strategy of when and who to test and in a much wider more complex context is more important. People have fixated on the just testing thing as it's easier than the reality of the wider thing, and also plays to personal fears about wanting to know they don't have it.

Right. We should be testing as part of contact tracing, not just randomly doing it.
 
But it’s also necessary to understand what kind of immunity is conferred by having had the virus for antibody testing Tom be meaningful.

If immunty fades over time, or if it really is possible to get it again regardless of having had it, then antibody gets are of limited value anyway.
 
Telegraph (there for the Hunt op-ed) reports that the NHS is about to start using a Covid-19 antiserum (plasma containing antibodies from recovered cases), so mass testing also useful for getting stocks up.

Mass testing wouldnt get any stocks up for the antibody transfusion method. It's started already btw

 
Back
Top Bottom