COVID-19 could affect more races this year.

[3jawchuck]

Whereas this covid 19 subject is interesting, it is throwing up a lot of contra arguments, so really it is not helping. The experts are trying to find the best way to isolate and destroy the virus, and if they cannot do it, with all the experience they have, it is not possible for people on here to come up with ideas and facts that will solve the problem.
Obviously posters will have opinions and these will often be different with some of them really out the window. Some of these opinions could result in readers ignoring proper clinical advice.
So, it would calm down the thread if you were able to actually post on topic, which is that covid 19 will effect F1 during the season. Leave the sorting out of the virus to the experts who are doing a great job, aided by the doctors and nursing staff. F1 is only a very small part of the overall problem

I'm with JaF and Phil here. This is already an off topic ... topic. There is nothing sporting and no new technical discussions to be had as of now so it makes no sense to forbid all talk of the prevailing issue of the day. I agree that spreading nonsense and encouraging shitty behaviour should be frowned upon, but not permitting any discussion at all seems counterproductive.

I for one prefer this sort of discussion than talk of running races backwards or holding the same race 8 times in a row and other such alternatives.

Maybe this topic should be split though. One for F1 related COVID19 comments and the other for the general discussion of the pandemic and its progress.

[Restomaniac]

No if you had bothered to read it you would see that some young people who HAD tested positive previously for the virus now in these tests tested NEGATIVE for antibodies. Those would be different tests at different times you see. So yes I understand how the different tests work but then again I bother to actually read something instead of just going off what I assume it says.


So again if they tested positive then the virus WAS present in their nose/throat and thus is expelled during breath/speech. So again, again how can people who can catch it more than once which includes it being present in the nose/throat help with herd immunity?........They can’t.

Understand now?

BTW this also explains how places like S.Korea where finding reinfection cases.

I’ve questioned EVERYTHING China have said on this however the report I linked to totally backs up this https://t.co/GjznqVqaqO

I’ll say it again if this is true then herd immunity is out if the window.

I did read it. That and other stuff.

The fact that the antibody test doesn't appear to find antibodies in young people does not mean they will become reinfected. The point is that there is a suggestion that some other process might be fighting the virus in young people. That might be a useful avenue to developing a therapy strategy going forward.

It's like the fact that men and women are equally likely to catch the virus but men are much more likely to die from it. Why? Because some as-yet understood aspect of the biology. Or why old people are more prone to die from it and very old people are very much more prone to die from it.

It appears that the older one is, the more antibodies are produced. There is some suggestion that the more massive antibody production in old people is what is actually causing them to suffer more and to die.

So young people may have an effective immunity to the virus and be contributing to the "herd" because they kill the virus before they present an infection risk to others.

It's called a novel virus for a reason...

If that were the case how can it then be found in a usual nose/throat swab test?

It HAS to be there to be found surely? Therefore when they breathe and talk........?

That’s the point your not explaining away. They clearly had enough virus to be detected in their nose/throat so how are they then NOT spreading?

[Big Tea]

No if you had bothered to read it you would see that some young people who HAD tested positive previously for the virus now in these tests tested NEGATIVE for antibodies. Those would be different tests at different times you see. So yes I understand how the different tests work but then again I bother to actually read something instead of just going off what I assume it says.


So again if they tested positive then the virus WAS present in their nose/throat and thus is expelled during breath/speech. So again, again how can people who can catch it more than once which includes it being present in the nose/throat help with herd immunity?........They can’t.

Understand now?

BTW this also explains how places like S.Korea where finding reinfection cases.

I’ve questioned EVERYTHING China have said on this however the report I linked to totally backs up this https://t.co/GjznqVqaqO

I’ll say it again if this is true then herd immunity is out if the window.

I did read it. That and other stuff.

The fact that the antibody test doesn't appear to find antibodies in young people does not mean they will become reinfected. The point is that there is a suggestion that some other process might be fighting the virus in young people. That might be a useful avenue to developing a therapy strategy going forward.

It's like the fact that men and women are equally likely to catch the virus but men are much more likely to die from it. Why? Because some as-yet understood aspect of the biology. Or why old people are more prone to die from it and very old people are very much more prone to die from it.

It appears that the older one is, the more antibodies are produced. There is some suggestion that the more massive antibody production in old people is what is actually causing them to suffer more and to die.

So young people may have an effective immunity to the virus and be contributing to the "herd" because they kill the virus before they present an infection risk to others.

It's called a novel virus for a reason...

If that were the case how can it then be found in a usual nose/throat swab test?

It HAS to be there to be found surely? Therefore when they breathe and talk........?

That’s the point your not explaining away. They clearly had enough virus to be detected in their nose/throat so how are they then NOT spreading?

I suppose it would revolve around 'you only find what you test for'.

The test apparently changes the colour of an agent. If tests 'trigger' at a set level then any lower is miss,as it does not match the 'positive ' colour. It is not like looking into a cup and thinking is there ant tea there, yes half a cup, it is a digital hit/miss at a set level.
There are probably (just my guess) several flue type antibodies that will trigger it as a hit if the level is set too low.

[Restomaniac]

I did read it. That and other stuff.

The fact that the antibody test doesn't appear to find antibodies in young people does not mean they will become reinfected. The point is that there is a suggestion that some other process might be fighting the virus in young people. That might be a useful avenue to developing a therapy strategy going forward.

It's like the fact that men and women are equally likely to catch the virus but men are much more likely to die from it. Why? Because some as-yet understood aspect of the biology. Or why old people are more prone to die from it and very old people are very much more prone to die from it.

It appears that the older one is, the more antibodies are produced. There is some suggestion that the more massive antibody production in old people is what is actually causing them to suffer more and to die.

So young people may have an effective immunity to the virus and be contributing to the "herd" because they kill the virus before they present an infection risk to others.

It's called a novel virus for a reason...

If that were the case how can it then be found in a usual nose/throat swab test?

It HAS to be there to be found surely? Therefore when they breathe and talk........?

That’s the point your not explaining away. They clearly had enough virus to be detected in their nose/throat so how are they then NOT spreading?

I suppose it would revolve around 'you only find what you test for'.

The test apparently changes the colour of an agent. If tests 'trigger' at a set level then any lower is miss,as it does not match the 'positive ' colour. It is not like looking into a cup and thinking is there ant tea there, yes half a cup, it is a digital hit/miss at a set level.
There are probably (just my guess) several flue type antibodies that will trigger it as a hit if the level is set too low.

I understand that. However my point is that if a test can pick it up then surely it’s in large enough numbers that it can expel during normal life? That’s my point.

Then consider that this latest test points to some young people being able to be infected at least twice. Also remember that there have been similar findings in other countries. My point all along has been that it’s worrying if true but that it needs mentioning as it’s from an rather good source.

[Big Tea]

If that were the case how can it then be found in a usual nose/throat swab test?

I suppose it would revolve around 'you only find what you test for'.

The test apparently changes the colour of an agent. If tests 'trigger' at a set level then any lower is miss,as it does not match the 'positive ' colour. It is not like looking into a cup and thinking is there ant tea there, yes half a cup, it is a digital hit/miss at a set level.
There are probably (just my guess) several flue type antibodies that will trigger it as a hit if the level is set too low.

I understand that. However my point is that if a test can pick it up then surely it’s in large enough numbers that it can expel during normal life? That’s my point.

Then consider that this latest test points to some young people being able to be infected at least twice. Also remember that there have been similar findings in other countries. My point all along has been that it’s worrying if true but that it needs mentioning as it’s from an rather good source.

Should not be ignored of course. but some things are possible ( at acceptable cost ) and others are not.
Having said that, if there is a market, someone will produce it

[Just_a_fan]

If that were the case how can it then be found in a usual nose/throat swab test?

It HAS to be there to be found surely? Therefore when they breathe and talk........?

That’s the point your not explaining away. They clearly had enough virus to be detected in their nose/throat so how are they then NOT spreading?

The antibody test is on people who have had the virus and recovered, not people who had an active infection at the time of the antibody test. There is a time difference between when the tests are carried out.

The reports don't say the people with low antibody test results are currently infected. They aren't capable of infecting people currently. Whether they can catch it again and, if so, they are able to fight it effectively without becoming infectious to others is what is causing interest. If they are fighting it without antibodies, the question is "how are they fighting it?".

[Restomaniac]

If that were the case how can it then be found in a usual nose/throat swab test?

It HAS to be there to be found surely? Therefore when they breathe and talk........?

That’s the point your not explaining away. They clearly had enough virus to be detected in their nose/throat so how are they then NOT spreading?

The antibody test is on people who have had the virus and recovered, not people who had an active infection at the time of the antibody test. There is a time difference between when the tests are carried out.

The reports don't say the people with low antibody test results are currently infected. They aren't capable of infecting people currently. Whether they can catch it again and, if so, they are able to fight it effectively without becoming infectious to others is what is causing interest. If they are fighting it without antibodies, the question is "how are they fighting it?".

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Honest question.

[Just_a_fan]

Then consider that this latest test points to some young people being able to be infected at least twice. Also remember that there have been similar findings in other countries. My point all along has been that it’s worrying if true but that it needs mentioning as it’s from an rather good source.

Isn't the concern, at this point, that there is a question about whether the "reinfected" people actually recovered in the first place? There is a concern about the quality and accuracy of the testing that has been undertaken. That's understandable as testing is haphazard even in the better testing countries.

Hopefully, further testing will show that the "recovered" people were still technically infected and hadn't finished recovering. That's the hope. If people are capable of reinfection and/or that lots of people don't make antibodies, then a vaccine won't work. In that case, we will have to accept an increased number of, mostly older, people dying from an uncontrollable infection.

Lots and lots of work needs to be done to get an answer to the above questions.

[Just_a_fan]

If that were the case how can it then be found in a usual nose/throat swab test?

It HAS to be there to be found surely? Therefore when they breathe and talk........?

That’s the point your not explaining away. They clearly had enough virus to be detected in their nose/throat so how are they then NOT spreading?

The antibody test is on people who have had the virus and recovered, not people who had an active infection at the time of the antibody test. There is a time difference between when the tests are carried out.

The reports don't say the people with low antibody test results are currently infected. They aren't capable of infecting people currently. Whether they can catch it again and, if so, they are able to fight it effectively without becoming infectious to others is what is causing interest. If they are fighting it without antibodies, the question is "how are they fighting it?".

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Honest question.

The low/no antibody people aren't being tested with a swab and found to be infected. You seem to be suggesting that they are.

Anyway, until further info comes out from the studies in to this issue, we're both just second guessing.

[Restomaniac]

Then consider that this latest test points to some young people being able to be infected at least twice. Also remember that there have been similar findings in other countries. My point all along has been that it’s worrying if true but that it needs mentioning as it’s from an rather good source.

Isn't the concern, at this point, that there is a question about whether the "reinfected" people actually recovered in the first place? There is a concern about the quality and accuracy of the testing that has been undertaken. That's understandable as testing is haphazard even in the better testing countries.

Hopefully, further testing will show that the "recovered" people were still technically infected and hadn't finished recovering. That's the hope. If people are capable of reinfection and/or that lots of people don't make antibodies, then a vaccine won't work. In that case, we will have to accept an increased number of, mostly older, people dying from an uncontrollable infection.

Lots and lots of work needs to be done to get an answer to the above questions.

That was my point all along which is why I said it was worrying results.

[Just_a_fan]

Then consider that this latest test points to some young people being able to be infected at least twice. Also remember that there have been similar findings in other countries. My point all along has been that it’s worrying if true but that it needs mentioning as it’s from an rather good source.

Isn't the concern, at this point, that there is a question about whether the "reinfected" people actually recovered in the first place? There is a concern about the quality and accuracy of the testing that has been undertaken. That's understandable as testing is haphazard even in the better testing countries.

Hopefully, further testing will show that the "recovered" people were still technically infected and hadn't finished recovering. That's the hope. If people are capable of reinfection and/or that lots of people don't make antibodies, then a vaccine won't work. In that case, we will have to accept an increased number of, mostly older, people dying from an uncontrollable infection.

Lots and lots of work needs to be done to get an answer to the above questions.

That was my point all along which is why I said it was worrying results.

We got to an agreement from different approaches. Cool.

[Restomaniac]

The antibody test is on people who have had the virus and recovered, not people who had an active infection at the time of the antibody test. There is a time difference between when the tests are carried out.

The reports don't say the people with low antibody test results are currently infected. They aren't capable of infecting people currently. Whether they can catch it again and, if so, they are able to fight it effectively without becoming infectious to others is what is causing interest. If they are fighting it without antibodies, the question is "how are they fighting it?".

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Honest question.

The low/no antibody people aren't being tested with a swab and found to be infected. You seem to be suggesting that they are.

Anyway, until further info comes out from the studies in to this issue, we're both just second guessing.

No I’m doing no such thing.

Young people are being tested in the normal way (swab) and are showing positive for the virus. They then clear the virus (I don’t think somebody of Karol Sikora‘s experience wouldn’t check). Then after waiting when tested for antibodies they find none. At no point have I said or suggested swabbing for antibodies.

[turbof1]

I'm gonna add my own 2 cents for a moment:

In Belgium, we had an interesting case in our elderly homes. The government rolled out swab tests, but they included the wrong waddings. Those were too thick and caused nose bleedings. They deemed all of the positive cases out of those tests not trustworthy and ordered to redo them with the correct waddings.

So it definitely seems a wide margin of error is possible or at least suspected with this test, especially when done improperly. Also due to your nose being a specific organ 'designed' to block out bacteria and viruses, there is always the chance it only ended up in the mucus of the nose, but never in the blood stream. In that case, you will still be a carrier, but without an actual infection, and you will not create anti-bodies. For me personally, only a blood test can be conclusive on that front.

Furthermore with these swab tests is that since they look for the RDNA of the virus, you can actually already be cured of the virus. The virus is dead, but the RDNA strands are still lying around and are readable for the tests.

Viral experts in Belgium came to the conclusion that people who tested positive on an infection -an actual proven infection- and who did not get (a lot of) anti-bodies after a couple of weeks, were actually still having the infection and were not cured. Anti-bodies, however, are eventually being created and you will get immune to it (there will of course always be exceptions, but I can't account for that). The viral experts also agreed immunity does not last forever, with 1 year immunity being fairly certain, 2 years likely, but 3 years of immunity is a stretch.

Finally, there is the possibility -emphasis on possibility- somebody who got infected once can get infected again shortly after. Likely in the case is that there will be anti-bodies present, but not enough. It kind of depends how bad the first infection was. The heavier the infection, the more the body will create anti-bodies.

[Restomaniac]

I'm gonna add my own 2 cents for a moment:

In Belgium, we had an interesting case in our elderly homes. The government rolled out swab tests, but they included the wrong waddings. Those were too thick and caused nose bleedings. They deemed all of the positive cases out of those tests not trustworthy and ordered to redo them with the correct waddings.

So it definitely seems a wide margin of error is possible or at least suspected with this test, especially when done improperly. Also due to your nose being a specific organ 'designed' to block out bacteria and viruses, there is always the chance it only ended up in the mucus of the nose, but never in the blood stream. In that case, you will still be a carrier, but without an actual infection, and you will not create anti-bodies. For me personally, only a blood test can be conclusive on that front.

Furthermore with these swab tests is that since they look for the RDNA of the virus, you can actually already be cured of the virus. The virus is dead, but the RDNA strands are still lying around and are readable for the tests.

Viral experts in Belgium came to the conclusion that people who tested positive on an infection -an actual proven infection- and who did not get (a lot of) anti-bodies after a couple of weeks, were actually still having the infection and were not cured. Anti-bodies, however, are eventually being created and you will get immune to it (there will of course always be exceptions, but I can't account for that). The viral experts also agreed immunity does not last forever, with 1 year immunity being fairly certain, 2 years likely, but 3 years of immunity is a stretch.

Finally, there is the possibility -emphasis on possibility- somebody who got infected once can get infected again shortly after. Likely in the case is that there will be anti-bodies present, but not enough. It kind of depends how bad the first infection was. The heavier the infection, the more the body will create anti-bodies.

This could also be true. I was just highlighting this piece and the assumptions laid out in it. If they ARE right then herd mentality and antibody tests are useless as defences which is a truly frightening thought.

[turbof1]

This could also be true. I was just highlighting this piece and the assumptions laid out in it. If they ARE right then herd mentality and antibody tests are useless as defences which is a truly frightening thought.

It is, but equally mass hysteria can too be an issue. Without downplaying the serious effects of the virus, because it is a deadly virus!, equally taking lockdown measures can cause people to go on hamstering sprees, to go en masse to parties one last time, to go shopping all at once. There's a distinct possibility the lockdown measurements initially helped the virus spread due to society acting in a reverse way. In Belgium, we saw a lot of people just packing together at grocery stores, bars, at container parks,... the day before things got closed, or when something reopens. The Netherlands learned from this by announcing the measures half a hour before things effectively got closed.

I didn't believe myself in the approach of Sweden at first, but granted their numbers are accurate, they are not worse off than countries like France and Belgium. Perhaps science did not factor in sociology when taking the measures.

Herd mentality is a difficult thing when only a very small percentage that breaks the rules is tolerable for the virus not to spread. If too many people break the rules, even if the vast vast majority still abides to them, lockdown rules can become undermined. To make it work the most efficient, you need a lockdown model like Italy or China, where you essentially rob people of their freedom. That will work.

Note what I am saying here, is not a push towards lockdown relaxation or people stopping to abide the rules. Far from it. Please hold yourself to the rules set by your country, and if needed be yourself more stringent than those rules! Be rational and logical, keep distance, wash your hands often and thoroughly, and avoid unnecessary trips. Human kind hasn't had to act responsible since WW2; now we have to.