Coronavirus

[pauld]

that wasn't really the question I asked.

I know but I thought that was what lay behind it. The point being that lockdown by itself won't fix this. Because it just surges again when you open up if you allow it to spread unchecked. But yes Dave's answer was a better direct answer to the question asked.

[flammableBen]

if the entire world could stay indoors for a month, strictly, would the virus disappear?

I know it's impossible. But in theory.

Probably not? Even if it was possible, I'm guessing the virus could live in whatever animal it mutated in to cross from bats to humans.

[Batch]

that wasn't really the question I asked.

I know but I thought that was what lay behind it. The point being that lockdown by itself won't fix this. Because it just surges again when you open up if you allow it to spread unchecked. But yes Dave's answer was a better direct answer to the question asked.

not at all, it was more that it occurred to me ending it is so incredibly simple and yet so incredibly impossible.

[Batch]

Probably not? Even if it was possible, I'm guessing the virus could live in whatever animal it mutated in to cross from bats to humans.

yeah that's the kind of stuff I've overlooked!

[RobertT]

Although it would need to find it's way back across to humans, which isn't always that easy.  There are many viruses around that we are not exposed to, yet.

The fact this fucker is still being found in people, in good numbers, weeks after any form of lock down shows it's either really persistent in staying in the body, or really contagious.  Likely both, when given the right conditions.  Oddly, lock downs create the right conditions for contagion, but limit future exposure for the population - so you pass on once really easily but then it has nowhere to jump.  The trick is knowing if it is 2 weeks or 2 months for that process to complete.

That info will be needed on full re-opening, to enable the tracing and then quarantine for the right period, and probably best to quarantine away from anyone else, even family.

[BambooToTheFuture]

Probably not? Even if it was possible, I'm guessing the virus could live in whatever animal it mutated in to cross from bats to humans.

There is still a lot of work being done to understand which animal that may be. Even the originator is inconclusive (the Rhinolophid Bat) and the intermediary even more so. Cats, cattle, sheep and pigeons have the ability to develop the same characteristic as Pangolins, whereby this virus can evolve and latch on to human cells. It is thought the pathway was Bat > Pangolin > Human. Yet there is still no definitive evidence. Other studies rule out Pangolin as intermediary altogether and only highly likely that it originated in bats but not how.

Further with origins. 41 of the first people exposed to SARS-CoV2, it was found that 27 had direct involvement/exposure to the Wuhan Food Market; the same analysis also found that the first known case did not. So we could be right to doubt the "Wuhan Market" story as a conclusive theory. Bats (I believe) weren't actually on sale at the Wet Market, so there would have to be a confirmed intermediary (Pangolin et al) in order for it to have originated there. If other studies rule out intermediaries altogether, then this could rule out Wuhan Wet Market altogether.

There is also the little matter of the virus having to make a jump back or reverse zoonosis from humans to animals. Which is generally quite difficult or not as effective (for the virus). So far we have only seen very few cases of this or if the transmission mutates in a way that is as deadly/noticeable. The caveat is, as you put it Ben; scientists should go with caution as if reverse zoonosis were to become more prevalent, we could be in a vicious circle for a long time.

But I know nothing, I am a melt, don't read, haven't studied anything and certainly not a scientist.

[Sippo]

So Boris' R is upto 0.8. Needs to be under 1 for it not to be a second peak....

Sun is out next week with nice weather planned. Bound to go over 1.

[pauld]

So Boris' R is upto 0.8. Needs to be under 1 for it not to be a second peak....

It needs to be a lot lower than that, around 0.5 or less I believe.

[pauld]

This is absolutely horrendous. After allowing Covid to rip through care homes, now the govt are pulling the plug on the scheme that got homeless people off the streets. Always the most vulnerable that they abandon

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/the-numbers-streets-going-rocket-18254318

[Bogus Dave]

It needs to be a lot lower than that, around 0.5 or less I believe.

Obviously the smaller the better, but anything less than one means there are fewer people transmitting the virus than have it - the average person infects less than one other person

It’s also from what I can gather a fairly fluid and not an exact science, and only really a concern (as in have to do something) if it breaches whatever threshold for multiple days. A bit like the single digit they give each day for deaths - it’s a good temperature check but not worth getting worked up and drawing conclusions off of one day

[RobertT]

Unrestricted, the virus is estimated to have an R of between 2 and 3.

[suttonred]

Interesting read.

https://twitter.com/nicksonsec/status/1260746591918608386/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1260746591918608386&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flive%2Fworld-52671694

[STFC_Manc]

It needs to be a lot lower than that, around 0.5 or less I believe.

It only needs to be less than 1.  If it's less than 1 then the amount of people with the virus is reducing, if it's 0.9 then 10 people will pass it on to 9 others and then they pass it on to 8.1 etc etc

[STFC_Manc]

Interesting read.

https://twitter.com/nicksonsec/status/1260746591918608386/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1260746591918608386&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flive%2Fworld-52671694

Bloody idiots!

[suttonred]

Yeah the bar and patrons were. The comments surprisingly to me were unanimous condemnation. Which was good to see.