Plasma? What’s the reasoning for that? I mean presumably any antibodies would be in whole blood wouldn’t they?
The Covid19 Thread
- Thread starter C_Claycomb
- Start date
Most antibodies (from memory) are fairly small proteins that stay in plasma when cells are taken away, helps when you don't need (apparently) to type blood either. If memory serves it has been tried in difficult viral infections before.
This is the story:
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
Quite touching and looks to be effective to some extent
GP who recovered from Covid-19 is now hoping to fight it - with her blood
Plasma transfusions could be used for patients whose immune systems are struggling to develop their own antibodies
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
Quite touching and looks to be effective to some extent
I donated some plasma a week or so ago as part of the convalescent covid trial.
Some decent information, and app option. I saw it on John Campbells YouTube channel, he’s consistently sensible and provides real info.
covid.joinzoe.com
Latest Daily UK COVID-19 Data: Vaccines, Cases, Trends | ZOE
COVID infection & vaccination rates in the UK today, based on public data and reports from millions of users of the ZOE Health Study app
covid.joinzoe.com
Thanks for the link sensible is definatly needed, every time I look at the stats i see both sides broken data
I'm not sure about a self reporting app as a reliable source of info - in the early days they were only testing people reporting 'symptoms' and found very few actual cases compiared to the number of tests - something like 10% medically administered tests at the time
but also having undertaken the self test its clear why the false negative rate is somwhere around 30% - its actually tricky to do and needs a reasonable amount stoicism to do sucessfully
looking forward to doing this weekly
I'm not sure about a self reporting app as a reliable source of info - in the early days they were only testing people reporting 'symptoms' and found very few actual cases compiared to the number of tests - something like 10% medically administered tests at the time
but also having undertaken the self test its clear why the false negative rate is somwhere around 30% - its actually tricky to do and needs a reasonable amount stoicism to do sucessfully
looking forward to doing this weekly
Thanks for the link sensible is definatly needed, every time I look at the stats i see both sides broken data
I'm not sure about a self reporting app as a reliable source of info - in the early days they were only testing people reporting 'symptoms' and found very few actual cases compiared to the number of tests - something like 10% medically administered tests at the time
but also having undertaken the self test its clear why the false negative rate is somwhere around 30% - its actually tricky to do and needs a reasonable amount stoicism to do sucessfully
looking forward to doing this weekly
Lee, the link above doesn’t require any testing, or downloading of the app, it’s mainly a good source of data. The site was created by Kings College London and looks to be a good source of info without the paranoia of dropping the UK Gov app onto your phone or computer. I’m fed up with being fed false numbers, bullshit, and being treated like a moron.
good source of data maybe but a sort of good data i'm not so sure
what i mean is its unlikley to be the true reality of the situation
There are alot of unknowns in symptom reporting - never mind the percentage of silent carriers who are the real risk to the population.
At the begining 10's of thousands of people were tested with very few positive results just becasue people reported having the classic symptoms.
It would be like trying to calculate cancer statistics through self diagnosis of somone feeling a lump, it is not a diagnosis and should not be treated as such
all I can see it doing is drive down the mortality rate through mis-diagnosis
There's a bit of guesswork going on with diagnosis, even with entries on death certificates. We didn't know anyone who had had it or died until two days ago when two people we see around told us about COVID deaths in their family. One had a serious medical condition and went in for his treatment only to die of related issues. His death certificate have COVID 19 as cause of death despite him not having any symptoms. I've heard reports of similar too easy causes of deaths being used like that. Saves actually trying to find the cause of you simply put COVID 19 down perhaps. That's even before the people who actually did get it but didn't have any symptoms at all. Without 100% testing of patients before getting it put on the death certificate you'll never know for sure.
And I've now had my letter. I've had it and have a good amount of antibodies.
Yep. I’ll be donating plasma every two weeks so it’ll be monitored.
I think the issue issue there are 3 catagories all being lumped together
1) died of covid 19,
2) those who died of something else but also had a positive covid 19 test
3) those who has some symptoms and died before testing so are put down as suspected covid
There's a 4th category of no specific COVID 19 symptoms according to the person who's partner got it out on his death cert. He had another condition which often results in pneumonia as cause of death. He got that and they put COVID 19 down. I know of quite as few people who died with cancer but got pneumonia causing the death so had that on their death cert. During these times it's COVID instead. The other person I heard of went into hospital from a nursing home and died with symptoms that weren't specific to COVID. No COVID in the nursing home or in the place he loved in the weeks before he went there. There's no evidence that it was COVID but they put it down as COVID. I can understand you treat the body as if they could have had it any disinfect the room and handle the body with more care but to actually put it in the certificate, an official record of some importance. Can't they take a sample from a recently deceased? If it's that important to record it as COVID then why not make sure? I suppose that's because there's insufficient resources for that.
BTW there's different reporting criteria in different countries. USA has a lower death per 100,000 people than Belgium but they only record COVID deaths that the patient had a positive test for. Belgium record death as COVID if there's any possibility it was a factor. They prefer to capture every case even if that puts the error in the death figure towards the over estimation side. USA is under recording. Funnily enough there's a big suspicion Russia is doing the same with especial doubt on st Petersburg figures.
Which is better, over recording or under recording? It's not important for actual containment because they'll sterilise every room between patients no matter what caused the death. It's only important for statistics and decisions made using those statistics.
Which is better, over recording or under recording? It's not important for actual containment because they'll sterilise every room between patients no matter what caused the death. It's only important for statistics and decisions made using those statistics.
Its important because people like numbers
and giving people what they like helps when you want to control them
Similar threads
