Testing for Cov-19 is the way to eliminate it

[Pugin 601]

So here's some food for thought. If 100% testing an be achieved within a controlled population, all carriers can be identified and isolated, which of course stops the infection in its tracks which leads to its elimination within that population.

In years to come I can see this leading to an annual 'World Virus Week' , based on testing and isolation. It would actually work, and of course it is also a commercial opportunity. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/18/scientists-say-mass-tests-in-italian-town-have-halted-covid-19 

[Aggy 755]

World virus week would be great - as long as the virus plays ball and doesn’t come three months earlier/later.

[Pugin 601]

3 minutes ago, Aggy said:

World virus week would be great - as long as the virus plays ball and doesn’t come three months earlier/later.

It's not a question of 'the' virus. Scientists understand something in the region of 5000 viruses. Of these, about 150 cause significant illness.

These would be the viruses that would be targeted. Cov-19 has had such an impact that the current outbreak will be the agent for change. Expect change to start in China or America as they will be the first to grasp the commercial and political potential. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,921]

I think Donald will be asking China to pay for it. Very politely of course 🙄

[Aggy 755]

Ok, world virus week would be great if all (or 150 of the most deadly) viruses play ball and don’t come three months before/after the tests.

If the tests were every October for instance (the start of “flu season” in the UK) then Coronavirus would have not been picked up. Coronavirus comes along to the Uk three months later. 
 

Wide scale testing is fine, but you can’t have a nominal “world virus week” where all the tests are done, that’s not how viruses work.

Edited March 19, 2020 by Aggy

[Barbe bleu 826]

1 hour ago, Pugin said:

It's not a question of 'the' virus. Scientists understand something in the region of 5000 viruses. Of these, about 150 cause significant illness.

I think it is now 151. 

The test would have to be for 151 virus strains which would be impossible and still wouldn't capture newly emergent pathogens. 

[benchwarmer 625]

Testing has value but it's not a magic bullet, since it's a snapshot in time.  Anyone who tests negative could test positive next day.  Its main benefit would be in enabling people with symptoms which turn out not to be covid to get on with their lives.

What would also help, and seems to be on the way, is immunity testing to get a more accurate picture of who is actually at risk, especially in the older age group.  But as with the above, it would need repeating at regular intervals for those without immunity.

Ironically, the shutdown - assuming it works - means that less people will develop immunity than would otherwise be the case.

 

 

 

[Aggy 755]

5 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

 

Ironically, the shutdown - assuming it works - means that less people will develop immunity than would otherwise be the case.

 

Which was sort of the point behind Boris’ original plan of basically doing nothing (until that changed over the course of a weekend). 

Testing has worked in a small Italian town of c.3000 people. If you can isolate that town and test everyone, you can keep the sick indoors, everyone else can carry on as normal and when the sick have recovered you’re rid of it. The problem is people move around the country (and world) and so could bring it back.

You’d need to test everyone in the whole country at the same time, then isolate those who don’t have it. That’s 66 million tests. If you think the NHS will be overwhelmed by 80,000 people needing urgent care, consider how we’re going to get 66 million people tested within a day or so of each other. Testing any further apart than that is pointless - because people will move and could catch it again before you’ve isolated every infected person in the country. This all assumes you can get the results back the same day as well. It’s not practicable. 

[Surfer 1,547]

The other test that would be valuable is are anti-bodies preset. i.e. have you been infected but you have recovered from the illness. Unlike "do you have the disease" it's not a snapshot in time that requires repeated tests. It's a "you had it" and "you recovered, so you can go back to work" test. 

There apparently is work going in in this field. (Disclaimer; I am not in any way medically qualified) 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.17.20037713v1

Edited March 20, 2020 by Surfer

[Aggy 755]

5 minutes ago, Surfer said:

The other test that would valuable is an anti-body preset. i.e. who has recovered from the illness. Unlike "do you have the disease" it's not a snapshot in time that requires repeated tests. It's a "you had it" and "you recovered, so you can go back to work" test. 

There apparently is work going in in this field. (Disclaimer; I am not in any way medically qualified) 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.17.20037713v1

But isn’t the point of most of the current measures to protect those who are vulnerable by stopping the spread? If you recovered you could still catch it again and continue the spread. 

[Surfer 1,547]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

But isn’t the point of most of the current measures to protect those who are vulnerable by stopping the spread? If you recovered you could still catch it again and continue the spread. 

Not if it follows normal virological behavior. Your body created antibodies that fought off the infecting virus, so you can’t get reinfected with that same virus for as long as those antibodies remain in your blood and so long as the virus does not mutate. 
 

This is why some research hospitals have been discussing harvesting those antibodies from donated blood as a treatment for infected patients - a technique that is at least a hundred years old and in common use before there were vaccines. 
 

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by Surfer
Removed reference to Daily Mail article on SureScreen Diagnostics Covid-19 Test

[Barbe bleu 826]

21 hours ago, Aggy said:

But isn’t the point of most of the current measures to protect those who are vulnerable by stopping the spread? If you recovered you could still catch it again and continue the spread. 

My take:

When you are exposed to a new pathogen like a virus your immune system will eventually detect it because immune cells will stick to proteins (antigens) on the invader that are recognised as foreign to the body and flag them for destruction.

 

Over the course of the infection the immune system will adapt and improve its response (for instance altering the shape of antibodies to get a better fit)

When you recover the immune system will keep some of these cell it uses in the fight in its memory banks so that if the same pathogen comes back it can immediately mount a substantial and effective response which clears the infection long before it takes hold.

As long as enough of these memory cells remain in the body you will be effectively immune. For some diseases immunity is pretty much for life, for others the memory clears.   

A mutation could also mean that the antigens on the pathogen are changed and the improved response becomes less effective.

As we get older our memory bank of  infections grows. Hence we suffer less disease as we leave childhood but on the downside after around 70-75 our ability to deal with new pathogens decreases. Hence ageing is a double edged sword.