Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting reading about the kings college report about antibodies and immunity. Basically the number of antibodies people have after being infected drops to virtually nil after 2 or 3 months in most people. This would make achieving natural herd immunity virtually impossible in a short timeframe. In another part of the study, done on monkeys i may add, the vaccine they were working on doesn't produce as high a antibody response as a typical covid infection. The bad news is that vaccinated monkeys could get infected again after a while and pass on covid to others. The good news is that the monkeys seem to have enough antibodies not to get really sick. Not amazing but a vaccine with booster shots would we could return to a normal way of life sooner." That said, after four months, no-one has caught twice, so maybe it's the T cells that are protecting people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting reading about the kings college report about antibodies and immunity. Basically the number of antibodies people have after being infected drops to virtually nil after 2 or 3 months in most people. This would make achieving natural herd immunity virtually impossible in a short timeframe. In another part of the study, done on monkeys i may add, the vaccine they were working on doesn't produce as high a antibody response as a typical covid infection. The bad news is that vaccinated monkeys could get infected again after a while and pass on covid to others. The good news is that the monkeys seem to have enough antibodies not to get really sick. Not amazing but a vaccine with booster shots would we could return to a normal way of life sooner. That said, after four months, no-one has caught twice, so maybe it's the T cells that are protecting people." But its the infection or vaccine that provoke production of the t cells? The study has said monkeys can catch it twice but don't get very sick twice. They can still pass it on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting reading about the kings college report about antibodies and immunity. Basically the number of antibodies people have after being infected drops to virtually nil after 2 or 3 months in most people. This would make achieving natural herd immunity virtually impossible in a short timeframe. In another part of the study, done on monkeys i may add, the vaccine they were working on doesn't produce as high a antibody response as a typical covid infection. The bad news is that vaccinated monkeys could get infected again after a while and pass on covid to others. The good news is that the monkeys seem to have enough antibodies not to get really sick. Not amazing but a vaccine with booster shots would we could return to a normal way of life sooner. That said, after four months, no-one has caught twice, so maybe it's the T cells that are protecting people." There’s been a number of cases of those suffering ‘relapsing’ with the infection. There’s a lack of knowledge over whether that is being re-infected or never fully recovering and then the virus symptoms returning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting reading about the kings college report about antibodies and immunity. Basically the number of antibodies people have after being infected drops to virtually nil after 2 or 3 months in most people. This would make achieving natural herd immunity virtually impossible in a short timeframe. In another part of the study, done on monkeys i may add, the vaccine they were working on doesn't produce as high a antibody response as a typical covid infection. The bad news is that vaccinated monkeys could get infected again after a while and pass on covid to others. The good news is that the monkeys seem to have enough antibodies not to get really sick. Not amazing but a vaccine with booster shots would we could return to a normal way of life sooner. That said, after four months, no-one has caught twice, so maybe it's the T cells that are protecting people." They reckon someone has caught it twice, but they are being checked carefully to ensure it is not a reinfection | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting reading about the kings college report about antibodies and immunity. Basically the number of antibodies people have after being infected drops to virtually nil after 2 or 3 months in most people. This would make achieving natural herd immunity virtually impossible in a short timeframe. In another part of the study, done on monkeys i may add, the vaccine they were working on doesn't produce as high a antibody response as a typical covid infection. The bad news is that vaccinated monkeys could get infected again after a while and pass on covid to others. The good news is that the monkeys seem to have enough antibodies not to get really sick. Not amazing but a vaccine with booster shots would we could return to a normal way of life sooner. That said, after four months, no-one has caught twice, so maybe it's the T cells that are protecting people. There’s been a number of cases of those suffering ‘relapsing’ with the infection. There’s a lack of knowledge over whether that is being re-infected or never fully recovering and then the virus symptoms returning. " I seen a bit of that earlier on the news...it seems a bugger for months after catching it with it interfering with the circulation system...some getting blood clot further down the line. It's a nasty bugger alright... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Think people need to stop thinking there will be a cure. At best it will be like the flu jab, it won't necessarily stop you getting it but will make it less deadly. The fact that the antibodies do not stay long isn't a surprise, this is the same with a lot of respiratory illnesses." Exactly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting reading about the kings college report about antibodies and immunity. Basically the number of antibodies people have after being infected drops to virtually nil after 2 or 3 months in most people. This would make achieving natural herd immunity virtually impossible in a short timeframe. In another part of the study, done on monkeys i may add, the vaccine they were working on doesn't produce as high a antibody response as a typical covid infection. The bad news is that vaccinated monkeys could get infected again after a while and pass on covid to others. The good news is that the monkeys seem to have enough antibodies not to get really sick. Not amazing but a vaccine with booster shots would we could return to a normal way of life sooner. That said, after four months, no-one has caught twice, so maybe it's the T cells that are protecting people." “.... so maybe it's the T cells that are protecting people....” T cells don’t prevent you from catching the virus. What T cells do, is destroy already infected cells. T cells don’t prevent reinfection, nor do they prevent an infected person from transmitting the virus. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting reading about the kings college report about antibodies and immunity. Basically the number of antibodies people have after being infected drops to virtually nil after 2 or 3 months in most people. This would make achieving natural herd immunity virtually impossible in a short timeframe. In another part of the study, done on monkeys i may add, the vaccine they were working on doesn't produce as high a antibody response as a typical covid infection. The bad news is that vaccinated monkeys could get infected again after a while and pass on covid to others. The good news is that the monkeys seem to have enough antibodies not to get really sick. Not amazing but a vaccine with booster shots would we could return to a normal way of life sooner. That said, after four months, no-one has caught twice, so maybe it's the T cells that are protecting people. There’s been a number of cases of those suffering ‘relapsing’ with the infection. There’s a lack of knowledge over whether that is being re-infected or never fully recovering and then the virus symptoms returning. I seen a bit of that earlier on the news...it seems a bugger for months after catching it with it interfering with the circulation system...some getting blood clot further down the line. It's a nasty bugger alright..." We’ve had a couple of patients swabbed clear during recovery, been discharged and then had them re-admitted positive a few weeks later. As for recovery... yup for some people it’s a very long haul back. For some sadly they can be clear of the virus but sadly not recover from the damage the body has sustained. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Have we given up on herd immunity in UK? Seems that we're trying to contain it now when previously it was all about 'flattening' the curve." There’s growing evidence that immunity is usually gone within 3 months. The antibody testing has been thought to have a 20% inaccuracy in results but timelines now seem to be suggesting that perhaps it’s confirming what lab testing is currently showing... immunity is pretty short lived. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We’ve had a couple of patients swabbed clear during recovery, been discharged and then had them re-admitted positive a few weeks." Research was done on this situation of a second positive test by the Korea Centre for disease control and it was found that the test was detecting dead virus particles and no evidence of live virus was found in the patients. The test is very good at detecting traces of the virus, it doesn't show whether the patient is infectious. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We’ve had a couple of patients swabbed clear during recovery, been discharged and then had them re-admitted positive a few weeks. Research was done on this situation of a second positive test by the Korea Centre for disease control and it was found that the test was detecting dead virus particles and no evidence of live virus was found in the patients. The test is very good at detecting traces of the virus, it doesn't show whether the patient is infectious." Not heard that pcr test amplify dna and i would thought the test would differentiate between a live and dead virus, but stand to be corrected. The study with macaques found they could be reinfected and could be come infectious. There is hearsay evidence it happens in humans too but no solid evidence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We’ve had a couple of patients swabbed clear during recovery, been discharged and then had them re-admitted positive a few weeks. Research was done on this situation of a second positive test by the Korea Centre for disease control and it was found that the test was detecting dead virus particles and no evidence of live virus was found in the patients. The test is very good at detecting traces of the virus, it doesn't show whether the patient is infectious." As both our patients went back onto oxygen and deteriorated I think it’s safe to say the virus was very much still active for them x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We’ve had a couple of patients swabbed clear during recovery, been discharged and then had them re-admitted positive a few weeks. Research was done on this situation of a second positive test by the Korea Centre for disease control and it was found that the test was detecting dead virus particles and no evidence of live virus was found in the patients. The test is very good at detecting traces of the virus, it doesn't show whether the patient is infectious. Not heard that pcr test amplify dna and i would thought the test would differentiate between a live and dead virus, but stand to be corrected. The study with macaques found they could be reinfected and could be come infectious. There is hearsay evidence it happens in humans too but no solid evidence. " If you search 'Tests in recovered patients found false positives' you can see the study. The PCR test cannot tell the difference between RNA from a dead or live viruses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We’ve had a couple of patients swabbed clear during recovery, been discharged and then had them re-admitted positive a few weeks. Research was done on this situation of a second positive test by the Korea Centre for disease control and it was found that the test was detecting dead virus particles and no evidence of live virus was found in the patients. The test is very good at detecting traces of the virus, it doesn't show whether the patient is infectious. As both our patients went back onto oxygen and deteriorated I think it’s safe to say the virus was very much still active for them x" Did they test negative when they were discharged, or were they just feeling better? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We’ve had a couple of patients swabbed clear during recovery, been discharged and then had them re-admitted positive a few weeks. Research was done on this situation of a second positive test by the Korea Centre for disease control and it was found that the test was detecting dead virus particles and no evidence of live virus was found in the patients. The test is very good at detecting traces of the virus, it doesn't show whether the patient is infectious. Not heard that pcr test amplify dna and i would thought the test would differentiate between a live and dead virus, but stand to be corrected. The study with macaques found they could be reinfected and could be come infectious. There is hearsay evidence it happens in humans too but no solid evidence. If you search 'Tests in recovered patients found false positives' you can see the study. The PCR test cannot tell the difference between RNA from a dead or live viruses. " It much likely to be a false negative test than a false positive. It is very unlikely, but not quite impossible, that someone would have have dead virus rna in their respiratory tract without live virus being there too. With regards to people getting ill twice what we don't know is it people getting infected twice or is it just the original infection being reactivated after lying dormant for a while. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Please do not post links that are not allowed on the thread, I have included the rules for reference: Links to other sites We have restrictions on where you can link to because otherwise people end up posting spam or links to places that host malware/spyware and it's bad for our users. You can link to: Any well recognised news site (bbc, times, telegraph, sun, cnn and all the rest) Youtube Lovehoney Wikipedia Many thanks "Oh it’s good to see you’re a mod now View | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We’ve had a couple of patients swabbed clear during recovery, been discharged and then had them re-admitted positive a few weeks. Research was done on this situation of a second positive test by the Korea Centre for disease control and it was found that the test was detecting dead virus particles and no evidence of live virus was found in the patients. The test is very good at detecting traces of the virus, it doesn't show whether the patient is infectious. Not heard that pcr test amplify dna and i would thought the test would differentiate between a live and dead virus, but stand to be corrected. The study with macaques found they could be reinfected and could be come infectious. There is hearsay evidence it happens in humans too but no solid evidence. If you search 'Tests in recovered patients found false positives' you can see the study. The PCR test cannot tell the difference between RNA from a dead or live viruses. It much likely to be a false negative test than a false positive. It is very unlikely, but not quite impossible, that someone would have have dead virus rna in their respiratory tract without live virus being there too. With regards to people getting ill twice what we don't know is it people getting infected twice or is it just the original infection being reactivated after lying dormant for a while. " If you read the research you will see that's exactly what they found, a pcr test detecting the virus particles but they were not able to grow any live virus from it. To quote the article 'The respiratory epithelial cell has a half-life of up to three months, and RNA virus in the cell can be detected with PCR testing one to two months after the elimination of the cell,' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We’ve had a couple of patients swabbed clear during recovery, been discharged and then had them re-admitted positive a few weeks. Research was done on this situation of a second positive test by the Korea Centre for disease control and it was found that the test was detecting dead virus particles and no evidence of live virus was found in the patients. The test is very good at detecting traces of the virus, it doesn't show whether the patient is infectious. Not heard that pcr test amplify dna and i would thought the test would differentiate between a live and dead virus, but stand to be corrected. The study with macaques found they could be reinfected and could be come infectious. There is hearsay evidence it happens in humans too but no solid evidence. If you search 'Tests in recovered patients found false positives' you can see the study. The PCR test cannot tell the difference between RNA from a dead or live viruses. It much likely to be a false negative test than a false positive. It is very unlikely, but not quite impossible, that someone would have have dead virus rna in their respiratory tract without live virus being there too. With regards to people getting ill twice what we don't know is it people getting infected twice or is it just the original infection being reactivated after lying dormant for a while. If you read the research you will see that's exactly what they found, a pcr test detecting the virus particles but they were not able to grow any live virus from it. To quote the article 'The respiratory epithelial cell has a half-life of up to three months, and RNA virus in the cell can be detected with PCR testing one to two months after the elimination of the cell,'" You are right had a good read around. Lots of reasons for a false positive or negative on a PCR. In ideal conditions the PCR test should result in only 10% false negatives and less than 1% false positive. However in the real world an individual test is at best 70% accurate. Sampling, sample storage and sample handling can all bring in errors. For example over time DNA/RNA can break down in a sample to show a false negative. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Please do not post links that are not allowed on the thread, I have included the rules for reference: Links to other sites We have restrictions on where you can link to because otherwise people end up posting spam or links to places that host malware/spyware and it's bad for our users. You can link to: Any well recognised news site (bbc, times, telegraph, sun, cnn and all the rest) Youtube Lovehoney Wikipedia Many thanks
Oh it’s good to see you’re a mod now View "And lovely to have him back contributing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Please do not post links that are not allowed on the thread, I have included the rules for reference: Links to other sites We have restrictions on where you can link to because otherwise people end up posting spam or links to places that host malware/spyware and it's bad for our users. You can link to: Any well recognised news site (bbc, times, telegraph, sun, cnn and all the rest) Youtube Lovehoney Wikipedia Many thanks
Oh it’s good to see you’re a mod now View
And lovely to have him back contributing. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
