Interesting take from Sweden

[PerkinsCuthbert]

20 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

People can get the coronavirus more than once, experts warn — recovering does not necessarily make you immune

https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-risk-of-reinfection-2020-2

 

Okay not a pier reviewed paper in the Lancet, but sufficient, I think, for me to say, there are indications.....no?

 

This is a forum for discussion.

Would that be an end-of-the-pier revue?

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, PerkinsCuthbert said:

Would that be an end-of-the-pier revue?

Ha! Boom, boom.......... Soz....putting that one down to predictive text.....sounds better than stupidity.

[Lacessit]

7 minutes ago, connda said:

And close to 90% are asymptomatic.  Difficult times for 4 to 6 % who contract it. 

Ever have Dengue?  I have. It was very unpleasant.  Research how much damage Dengue can do to a body.  It's easy to publish fear-porn to support the case for lockdowns and over-reactions.  But as a whole, most people who contract the virus will become mildly ill or not ill at all and the majority will develop antibodies and life will go on.  There are thousands of kinds of viruses in this world and some do some really terrible damage to a human body - but up to this year we didn't destroy our economies and our way of life our to fear of viruses. 
 

The difference with this little beastie is - there's no vaccine, and it is highly contagious in ways that are still not fully understood.

Once the world gets better knowledge, I'm predicting many of the over-the-top responses will be discarded.

One aspect of lockdowns that governments are quietly sweeping under the carpet is suicide rates. They are spiking.

[xylophone]

21 minutes ago, connda said:

And close to 90% are asymptomatic.  Difficult times for 4 to 6 % who contract it. 

Ever have Dengue?  I have. It was very unpleasant.  Research how much damage Dengue can do to a body.  It's easy to publish fear-porn to support the case for lockdowns and over-reactions.  But as a whole, most people who contract the virus will become mildly ill or not ill at all and the majority will develop antibodies and life will go on.  There are thousands of kinds of viruses in this world and some do some really terrible damage to a human body - but up to this year we didn't destroy our economies and our way of life our to fear of viruses. 
 

I just posted that because it showed some interesting statistics and seemed, for me anyway, to put some rationality on why Italy has that high death rate.

 

And yes I have had dengue (not pleasant at all) and the Epstein-Barr virus in my youth, but never really researched what damage those viruses could do to the body, and probably best that I don't, so that I live in blissful ignorance!!!

[Logosone]

34 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

immunity is the rule?

 

is it?  we have absolute proof of that?  in all cases?  assuming immunity from the B strain in wuhan and europe and new york, is one guaranteed immunity from the C strain in singapore or australia?

 

we know already that 50% of the people who get it are immune.

 

what of the other 50%?  sounds like immunity is equal to a coin toss.

 

it's exactly the other way round.

 

why would it be the other way around?  would you take a medicine or urdergo treatment because it's been proven to be effective, or because it hasn't been proven to not be effective?

 

 

Yes, immunity is the rule with viral infections:

 

"Prof Jon Cohen, emeritus professor of infectious diseases at Brighton and Sussex Medical School, said: “The answer is that we simply don’t know [about reinfection] yet because we don’t have an antibody test for the infection, although we will have soon.

“However, it is very likely, based on other viral infections, that yes, once a person has had the infection they will generally be immune and won’t get it again. There will always be the odd exception, but that is certainly a reasonable expectation.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/the-big-question-over-coronavirus-can-a-person-get-it-twice

 

Re-infection is the exception.

 

Regarding your quoting of the Oxford genetic paper I will wait until it has been properly peer reviewed to comment. We have already seen with the faulty Chinese study claiming one more virulent strain among two, which was later debunked, that geneticists too make mistakes.

 

Obviously there are different strains, however, the difference between the strains appears to be minimal and the mutations, as one poster explained above are few. 

 

What I meant by "the other way around" is that those who would have you believe there is no immunity have to prove this is the case, because with viral infections the rule is, according to experts, that once a person has had the infection they will generally be immune and won't get it again.  Though exceptions do occur.

 

You are of course putting up a straw-man argument, you were not referring to a therapy, you were referring to immunity. And saying that somehow those arguing that immunity exists had to prove that beyond doubt. In actual fact immunity is the rule, and those claiming there is no immunity are the ones that really need to establish that. The immunity issue will be settle one way or the other soon anyway as a reliable anti-body test now exists. 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Logosone

[bokningar]

Total deaths in Sweden week 4 to 16 as an average the past 5 years is 3411 and this year, 3491 dead the same period.

This mean there is an increased number of 6,7 dead people a week this year. 1 per day. That indicate that most of the dead people in Sweden during this time would have died anyhow. Some might have died a bit earlier than a “normal” year.

This is preliminary numbers so it might change. It is from the national government agency of statistics and can be downloaded from their website. And it is in Swedish and English. If facts is of interests. 

[Surelynot]

3 minutes ago, bokningar said:

Total deaths in Sweden week 4 to 16 as an average the past 5 years is 3411 and this year, 3491 dead the same period.

This mean there is an increased number of 6,7 dead people a week this year. 1 per day. That indicate that most of the dead people in Sweden during this time would have died anyhow. Some might have died a bit earlier than a “normal” year.

This is preliminary numbers so it might change. It is from the national government agency of statistics and can be downloaded from their website. And it is in Swedish and English. If facts is of interests. 

Wow.....those figures are.......don't know what to say! Are you sure?

[FritsSikkink]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

How is Sweden doing in comparison with Norway? 

Pretty bad:

[bokningar]

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

Wow.....those figures are.......don't know what to say! Are you sure?

Yes, just downloaded the spreadsheet 30 minutes ago. Anyone can do that,  

[GroveHillWanderer]

44 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Why did you choose to bring spanish flu as comparison and not swine flu, sars and the likes ?

Choosing Spanish flu instead  of swine flu would not have made sense because they are essentially the same thing - both are caused by the H1N1 strain of the Influenza A virus.

 

In any event, the point being made was that the second wave of a virus outbreak is not necessarily less deadly than the first. So choosing the Spanish flu was a good example because it's an illustration of that fact.

[ChouDoufu]

14 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Yes, immunity is the rule with viral infections:

 

"Prof Jon Cohen, emeritus professor of infectious diseases at Brighton and Sussex Medical School, said: “The answer is that we simply don’t know [about reinfection] yet because we don’t have an antibody test for the infection, although we will have soon.

“However, it is very likely, based on other viral infections, that yes, once a person has had the infection they will generally be immune and won’t get it again. There will always be the odd exception, but that is certainly a reasonable expectation.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/the-big-question-over-coronavirus-can-a-person-get-it-twice

 

Re-infection is the exception.

 

Regarding your quoting of the Oxford genetic paper I will wait until it has been properly peer reviewed to comment. We have already seen with the faulty Chinese study claiming one more virulent strain among two, which was later debunked, that geneticists too make mistakes.

 

Obviously there are different strains, however, the difference between the strains appears to be minimal and the mutations, as one poster explained above are few. 

 

What I meant by "the other way around" is that those who would have you believe there is no immunity have to prove this is the case, because with viral infections the rule is, according to experts, that once a person has had the infection they will generally be immune and won't get it again.  Though exceptions do occur.

 

You are of course putting up a straw-man argument, you were not referring to a therapy, you were referring to immunity. And saying that somehow those arguing that immunity exists had to prove that beyond that. In actual fact immunity is the rule, and those claiming there is no immunity are the ones that really need to establish that. The immunity issue will be settle one way or the other soon anyway as a reliable anti-body test now exists. 

 

i would read the expert's statement a bit more carefully.

 

"we simply don't know yet" is not a good case for saying we know for sure.

"it's very likely" does not mean definite.

"generally immune" is not a guarantee.

 

i don't see a strawman.  i'm considering an immunity certificate to be part of the overall treatment of the virus.  if we are going to take these virus passports as proof of immunity, we better have some real science to back them up.

 

and you're missing the null hypothesis.  the who is NOT saying there is NO immunity, they are saying immunity has not been proven.  two very different things.  that's the strawman argument.

 

it's like religionists claiming atheists claim there is no god, and demanding they prove it, trying to transfer the burden of proof.  atheists (most nowadays being agnostic) in reality say they don't believe there is a god, not there there is no god or gods.  in this case they'll believe in immunity when there is resaon to believe there is in fact immunity.

 

but then let's say we agree, and we'll accept some estimates that 90% of the population has had the virus, and immunity certificates are fine, and there's no need to prove immunity because it's likely.

 

the virus outbreak began in wuhan which was locked down for 75 days, so surely by now nearly the entire population of that city has been exposed, and should be considered immune.  summer is coming and thailand needs tourists................

 

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by ChouDoufu

[Logosone]

47 minutes ago, TheDark said:

Afaik 0% of the people who get covid-19 are immune. Some people don't have strong or even noticeable symptoms, but they still get the infection and can spread it around. 

 

Immune people don't get infected and don't spread the virus forward.

That's a misunderstanding of immunity.

 

"The concept of immunity has intrigued mankind for thousands of years. The modern word "immunity" derives from the Latin immunis, meaning exemption from military service, tax payments or other public services. "

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_(medical)

 

It was used to describe people who did not suffer the adverse effects of a disease, for eg even though they were bitten by a snake the poison would show no effect, or even though some people were struck down by illness they were not.

 

In modern times In "biology, immunity is the balanced state of multicellular organisms having adequate biological defenses to fight infection, disease, or other unwanted biological invasion, while having adequate tolerance to avoid allergy, and autoimmune diseases."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_(medical)

 

So in this case it would mean cells have adequate defenses to fight the infectious effects of Covid19. In other words, they are immune to the disease, Covid19, not to the virus. They are exempted from the effects of Covid19, even if they are infected.

 

However, the virus by itself is not the problem, the problem is the effect it has on cells that can not defend themselves.

 

Therefore, asymptomatic people can be considered to be immune from the disease of Covid19.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Logosone

[mauGR1]

Just now, GroveHillWanderer said:

Choosing Spanish flu instead  of swine flu would not have made sense because they are essentially the same thing - both are caused by the H1N1 strain of the Influenza A virus.

 

In any event, the point being made was that the second wave of a virus outbreak is not necessarily less deadly than the first. So choosing the Spanish flu was a good example because it's an illustration of that fact.

Ok, in the same way we can say that a second wave is not necessarily more deadly than the first.

perhaps it's not only me who needs some reading

[pixelaoffy]

Wish I could get a flight to Stockholm

[Logosone]

7 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

i would read the expert's statement a bit more carefully.

 

"we simply don't know yet" is not a good case for saying we know for sure.

"it's very likely" does not mean definite.

"generally immune" is not a guarantee.

 

i don't see a strawman.  i'm considering an immunity certificate to be part of the overall treatment of the virus.  if we are going to take these virus passports as proof of immunity, we better have some real science to back them up.

 

but then let's say we agree, and we'll accept some estimates that 90% of the population has had the virus, and immunity certificates are fine, and there's no need to prove immunity because it's likely.

 

the virus outbreak began in wuhan which was locked down for 75 days, so surely by now nearly the entire population of that city has been exposed, and should be considered immune.  summer is coming and thailand needs tourists................

 

 

You did it again! You set up a strawman argument.

 

Neither me nor the expert I quoted are saying we are sure. 

 

What that expert said is exactly the opposite, we can not be sure because we have not done the antibody test, but looking at viral infections generally as a general rule someone who has been infected won't get the disease again, though there are exceptions.

 

I read the quote very carefully. What the expert is saying is "even if we have not done the proper antibody testing it is a reasonable expectation that there is immunity because that is what generally happens with viral infections, even if there are re-infections".

 

Obviously if immunity is, as expected, proven to be the rule by antibody testing, then it would make perfect sense to have immunity certificates, even if there are a few exceptions.

 

We already have real science to back up immunity certificates, as a general rule with viral infections immunity follows. 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Logosone

[bokningar]

15 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Wow.....those figures are.......don't know what to say! Are you sure?

Sorry for sloppy reporting. I can see from week 1 to 16, so 16 weeks. Then it become really interesting. There is fewer dead people this year than the average for the past 5 years.

This year 4210 dead average past 5 years 4338. So 128 less dead people this year than “normal” in Sweden.

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, bokningar said:

Sorry for sloppy reporting. I can see from week 1 to 16, so 16 weeks. Then it become really interesting. There is fewer dead people this year than the average for the past 5 years.

This year 4210 dead average past 5 years 4338. So 128 less dead people this year than “normal” in Sweden.

So how do your figures stack up with this graph.....am I missing something?

[ChouDoufu]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

You did it again! You set up a strawman argument.

 

Neither me nor the expert I quoted are saying we are sure. 

 

What that expert said is exactly the opposite, we can not be sure because we have not done the antibody test, but looking at viral infections generally as a general rule someone who has been infected won't get the disease again, though there are exceptions.

 

I read the quote very carefully. What the expert is saying is "even if we have not done the proper antibody testing it is a reasonable expectation that there is immunity because that is what generally happens with viral infections, even if there are re-infections".

 

Obviously if immunity is, as expected, proven to be the rule by antibody testing, then it would make perfect sense to have immunity certificates, even if there are a few exceptions.

 

We already have real science to back up immunity certificates, as a general rule with viral infections immunity follows. 

 

what strawman?  i agree.....the expert said we are not sure.  

 

we can have 'general rules.'  do those rules apply to this specific virus, and the various strains?  we simply do not know.  if we are going to trust certificates to permit international travel, not knowing is not good enough.

 

 

[zhounan]

Although Johan Norberg is completely opposed to my views on the economy and globalism, I agree with his statement.

[bokningar]

4 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

So how do your figures stack up with this graph.....am I missing something?

Confirmed cases of sick people is one thing.

How many that totally die in a country is another, most who did die was old and sick. So, they might have died a week early and that don’t change the total number of dead people over a longer time. Now I’m just guessing.

[steelepulse]

6 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

So how do your figures stack up with this graph.....am I missing something?

I didn't know confirmed cases was the same as deaths.  Are you saying they are by showing a graph of confirmed cases?

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, bokningar said:

Confirmed cases of sick people is one thing.

How many that totally die in a country is another, most who did die was old and sick. So, they might have died a week early and that don’t change the total number of dead people over a longer time. Now I’m just guessing.

Got it. Cheers 

[PerkinsCuthbert]

Interesting take on Thailand, with a mention of Sweden towards the end: https://www.asiasentinel.com/p/thailands-misplaced-priorities-against

 

[Surelynot]

8 minutes ago, PerkinsCuthbert said:

Interesting take on Thailand, with a mention of Sweden towards the end: https://www.asiasentinel.com/p/thailands-misplaced-priorities-against

 

Excellent read.

[steelepulse]

8 minutes ago, PerkinsCuthbert said:

Interesting take on Thailand, with a mention of Sweden towards the end: https://www.asiasentinel.com/p/thailands-misplaced-priorities-against

 

I see the author is residing in country, I wonder if a knock on his door and a lawsuit will soon follow. Nice to see things from a realistic perspective and not the narrative given to us by those in charge.

[tlock]

2 hours ago, Guderian said:

You really need to read a bit more. Try having a look at what happened during the second wave of the Spanish flu.

 

https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence

 

 

 

 

Wikipedia says that natural selection favors weaker strains of the viruses.  The second wave of the spanish flu was as a result of quarantining the asymptomatic/mildly sick in the trenches and allowing the sicker soldiers to travel and spread the deadlier mutations.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

 

This increased severity has been attributed to the circumstances of the First World War.^[104] In civilian life, natural selection favors a mild strain. Those who get very ill stay home, and those mildly ill continue with their lives, preferentially spreading the mild strain. In the trenches, natural selection was reversed. Soldiers with a mild strain stayed where they were, while the severely ill were sent on crowded trains to crowded field hospitals, spreading the deadlier virus. The second wave began, and the flu quickly spread around the world again. Consequently, during modern pandemics, health officials pay attention when the virus reaches places with social upheaval (looking for deadlier strains of the virus).^[1

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

OK, in the same way we can say that a second wave is not necessarily more deadly than the first.

Yes, of course we can say that. The two statements go hand in hand. As I said earlier, a second wave can be either more, or less deadly.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Yes, of course we can say that. The two statements go hand in hand. As I said earlier, a second wave can be either more, or less deadly.

Oh, and i forgot, there may not be a 2nd wave. ????

[UbonThani]

1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Choosing Spanish flu instead  of swine flu would not have made sense because they are essentially the same thing - both are caused by the H1N1 strain of the Influenza A virus.

 

In any event, the point being made was that the second wave of a virus outbreak is not necessarily less deadly than the first. So choosing the Spanish flu was a good example because it's an illustration of that fact.

100 years ago

totally irrelevant

[GroveHillWanderer]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

We already have real science to back up immunity certificates, as a general rule with viral infections immunity follows. 

I'm afraid that's a bit of an over-simplification. We have evidence that after a viral infection, people have an immune response. However that immune response can vary. It can be extremely strong, effective and long-lasting. On the other hand it can be extremely weak, ineffective and short-lived. Or more likely, it can be somewhere in between the two extremes. Immunity is not an all or nothing proposition, the body's immune response is on a slidng scale.

 

This is really well explained by an epidemiologist in the clip below: