Jump to content
Spam messages. Please stop reporting messages from Orange 15, Ivsa and Pupyh. They’ve been banned. ×

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 32.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Banker

    2390

  • TheTeapot

    1358

  • Gladys

    1224

  • horatiotheturd

    1015

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OK. For what it's worth I'm going to try and explain why genomics is important in a ssRNA virus epidemic. No doubt it will end up being recited badly at a briefing, but, well, whatever. You read it he

Rachel has tried every which way to re-offer her services. This last tweet wasn't the first time she's reached out. Government has made it very clear they do not want her to be involved. I want h

I think you'll find most so called anti-government rhetoric is focused on government-stupidity and government-selfishness. In recent times - under Brown, Bell and now Quayle - all too many govern

Posted Images

57 minutes ago, wrighty said:

It's better than hearing on a Sunday night that you might have been exposed the previous Tuesday.

To be fair, the Java Express was listed as a 'Location of Interest' on Friday 19th and people who were in there between the specified times on the previous Tuesday were asked to be extra vigilant regarding the development symptoms. What else could they (IOMG) have done and how would genomics have changed anything in the subsequent timeline?

Or am I missing something?

Edited by madmanxpilot
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Take a look at what the WHO says. Paragraph above bottom of page 21. Explains the limitations

https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1326052/retrieve

I'm not a doctor and I struggled with a lot of this document. But my conclusions are based upon my understanding of it

I'm not just being as Ass/Troll on purpose. Its an interesting subject and the potential of this testing of course is clear. However, I'm just honestly not seeing the benefits to us at this moment in time and I agree with Ashford (or whoever is advising him) that as we are it wouldn't help

Thanks for the link, I mean that without being facetious or condescending.

If you look at section 5.4.6, which is what we're talking out, 'intra host viral diversity', or, how the virus differs between individual hosts.

Quote

Intra-host variation exists for coronaviruses that are closely related to SARS-CoV-2, such as MERS-CoV (110). While the (limited) current data support the existence of intra-host genetic variation in SARS-CoV-2, to date there are very few data sets of within-host variation from known epidemiological clusters that could be used to determine whether this variation is transmitted between patients( 111). If it is not, the use of these techniques would not be possible. Specialist bioinformatic and phylogenetic analyses are required to analyse intra-host virus variation. Given the current lack of understanding of the magnitude of SARS-CoV-2 intra-host variation or its transmissibility, these specialist analyses are not covered here.

But, I'd point out that the paper this section cites, was from the 9th of March 2020, when we didn't have the data or understanding of the virus that we do now.

So, if we take that in light of contemporary literature, this paper for example, published on the 18th Feb 2021 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.13.21251678v1 shows how you can use those genomics to identify venues of transmission. Edit to add: This paper is not yet peer reviewed, but it went up last week. If you look at the first authors, they are all well-cited.

Quote

an in-depth analysis of one population infection cluster combining genetic with contact tracing data enabled the identification of a previously unrecognized population transmission chain involving a martial arts gym. Based on these results and a real-time sequencing experiment in which we demonstrated the feasibility of achieving sample-to-turnaround times of <30 hours with the Oxford Nanopore technology, we discuss the potential benefits of routine ultra-fast sequencing of all detected infections for contact tracing, infection cluster detection, and, ultimately, improved management of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

 

Edited by AcousticallyChallenged
Not peer reviewed yet
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Perhaps I am being thick, but how does genomics tell you who the virus has been transmitted to.? To do the genomic studies you have to have a positive test. The genomic tests on one person will not tell you who they have transmitted the virus to if that person is not already known to have the virus.

This link might help informing you about how it works...

https://theconversation.com/genomic-fingerprinting-helps-us-trace-coronavirus-outbreaks-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-work-142917

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Newbie said:

If they both have the exact same strain of virus, how does it tell you who caught it from who in the coffee shop? If there has been a mutation and you just have those 2 cases, how do you know which is the earlier version of the virus? These are genuine questions - just trying to understand.

Every time a virus moves from person it varies slightly but it still carries with it markers of the previous infection. Think of it like DNA (i knows it not before anyone starts banging that drum) your DNA can identify who your parents are, it can also tell who your brother and sisters parents are. It can say that you're related to your cousin but not directly. It can also tell you that a sibling you've lived with all your life is actually only a half sibling because your mum got frisky with the milkman.

In the case of genomics this lineage helps identify if the clusters are from one source and whether they came directly from that source or through other people first. If it came through others first then the problem is more widespread and more tracing work needs to be done. If it came directly then congratulations contact tracing is working.

The quicker it gets done then the greater the aid to contact tracing.

So you see it is a useful tool to have.

I'm pretty sure, although I could be wrong, there is an issue with flying these samples away and they have to go on the boat. With the boats not going that causes more delay. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Every time a virus moves from person it varies slightly but it still carries with it markers of the previous infection. Think of it like DNA (i knows it not before anyone starts banging that drum) your DNA can identify who your parents are, it can also tell who your brother and sisters parents are. It can say that you're related to your cousin but not directly. It can also tell you that a sibling you've lived with all your life is actually only a half sibling because your mum got frisky with the milkman.

In the case of genomics this lineage helps identify if the clusters are from one source and whether they came directly from that source or through other people first. If it came through others first then the problem is more widespread and more tracing work needs to be done. If it came directly then congratulations contact tracing is working.

The quicker it gets done then the greater the aid to contact tracing.

So you see it is a useful tool to have.

I'm pretty sure, although I could be wrong, there is an issue with flying these samples away and they have to go on the boat. With the boats not going that causes more delay. 

 

I think the other thing to reinforce is:

Genomics doesn't replace contact tracing.

But, you only have a certain contact tracing capacity, genomics helps you target that to the right places.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the stinking enigma said:

The way i see it, quick genomics is key to avoiding lockdown especially as we move forwards with a higher percentage of vaccinated people. Either terrence fuckwit is a true fuckwit or he has a different agenda. I suspect both

I have no "agenda".

The Genomics thing is just boring.  It simply doesn't alter strategy and we get the results anyway (for what they are worth).

No idea about the Richard Glover comment from tosspot.   Must be building site humour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

 

I'm pretty sure, although I could be wrong, there is an issue with flying these samples away and they have to go on the boat. With the boats not going that causes more delay. 

 

Not to mention potential cross contamination.....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, quilp said:

All's well, nothing to worry about...

 

 

Some very interesting comments on there especially on SPC isolation which Ashie accepts is not sustainable going forward 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Banker said:

Some very interesting comments on there especially on SPC isolation which Ashie accepts is not sustainable going forward 

There is. Part 2 to follow shortly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

I have no "agenda".

The Genomics thing is just boring.  It simply doesn't alter strategy and we get the results anyway (for what they are worth).

No idea about the Richard Glover comment from tosspot.   Must be building site humour.

No, but that's not what it is. There's no silver bullet.

Genomics is part of a toolkit for real-time outbreak management. How many mechanics, when offered use of a valuable tool, no different to the one they are using, except from taking less time to arrive, at no cost to them would huff and say "no, we can this one I have to wait 5+ days for instead" with an urgent job?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I'm not just being as Ass/Troll on purpose. Its an interesting subject and the potential of this testing of course is clear. However, I'm just honestly not seeing the benefits to us at this moment in time and I agree with Ashford (or whoever is advising him) that as we are it wouldn't help

Make your mind up fella. Not trolling? No, of course not....

DDBFC0E5-DA09-4568-B705-B1A5C8416520.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

No, but that's not what it is. There's no silver bullet.

Genomics is part of a toolkit for real-time outbreak management. How many mechanics, when offered use of a valuable tool, no different to the one they are using, except from taking less time to arrive, at no cost to them would huff and say "no, we can this one I have to wait 5+ days for instead" with an urgent job?

That is exactly the point, there is no single answer but a combination of weapons to fight this with. I just can't understand why they are not all being used.  Say, another lockdown is proposed because it looks like there is more than one cluster operating, wouldn't it be good to have genomics to confirm or otherwise?

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...