Scary Peer Reviewed Science - Trigger Warning

[ClimbDad]

Taking Mumsnet HQ’s suggestion on board, this thread is for those who want scientific information about COVID-19. It is clearly advertised as scary, and has a trigger warning, so no complaints from anyone complaining they didn’t know what they were stumbling into.

I’ll only be sharing peer reviewed papers from respected journals and would advise anyone else who wants to share anything to use the same criteria.

The thread isn’t actually designed to scare. It’s designed to inform, so that people can make a decent assessment of risk and lobby decision makers when appropriate. Don’t assume government knows more than you. They’ve been behind the curve on everything.

I’ll start. The Guardian wrote a good article about the progress of respiratory viruses through autumn and how we don’t know whether SARS-COV-2 will compete with flu.

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/19/what-happens-when-flu-meets-covid-19

The theory of viral competition suggests COVID19 might be kept at bay by flu. In other words infection by other respiratory viruses might help reduce the impact of a second wave.

However this peer reviewed study published in the Journal of Medical Virology suggests flu and COVID19 don’t compete, and coexist simultaneously.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.26364

The inference is that having SARS-COV-2 circulating at the same time as influenza will cause more serious infection. It doesn’t seem that viral competition will make things better.

Practically what does this mean? I believe it means it is prudent to be even more cautious during flu season than we were in spring, and to do everything possible to reduce transmission. That is going to be particularly relevant to schools. Even if one refuses to accept schools play a role in COVID19 transmission, it is established science that schools are the engines behind influenza transmission every year, so precautionary measures make sense even if just to reduce spread of flu.

@IloveJKRowling

Thank you Climbdad for continuing to post despite the science deniers.

What is an issue is that ClimbDad claims to be a scientist, and again has taken one study and used it to 'prove' something. A scientist would say "Here is ONE piece of evidence that suggests it MIGHT be airborne, but it needs further research", not use it to prove something which the article itself does not declare proof of... Just says it could be a possibility. Also he took the fact that there was virus particles in the air samples at face value. The study says only one air sample contained live virus that could be replicated in a lab. It also says there was "some evidence" this made it infectious, again not proof. The other air samples did contain virus particles but were not viable. If they are there, but cannot infect you, that is a different scenario altogether. This is a really good study that suggests covid MAY cause a viable airborne infection in SOME situations. It needs to be supported by further research. What I take issue with is the way it was presented in this thread as "Here is proof". Did he think we wouldnt actually read it or understand it and just accept his analysis? No discussio of the limitations of the study. It is no wonder people get annoyed!

@ClimbDad

Taking Mumsnet HQ’s suggestion on board, this thread is for those who want scientific information about COVID-19. It is clearly advertised as scary, and has a trigger warning, so no complaints from anyone complaining they didn’t know what they were stumbling into.

I’ll only be sharing peer reviewed papers from respected journals and would advise anyone else who wants to share anything to use the same criteria.

The thread isn’t actually designed to scare. It’s designed to inform, so that people can make a decent assessment of risk and lobby decision makers when appropriate. Don’t assume government knows more than you. They’ve been behind the curve on everything.

I’ll start. The Guardian wrote a good article about the progress of respiratory viruses through autumn and how we don’t know whether SARS-COV-2 will compete with flu.

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/19/what-happens-when-flu-meets-covid-19

The theory of viral competition suggests COVID19 might be kept at bay by flu. In other words infection by other respiratory viruses might help reduce the impact of a second wave.

However this peer reviewed study published in the Journal of Medical Virology suggests flu and COVID19 don’t compete, and coexist simultaneously.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.26364

The inference is that having SARS-COV-2 circulating at the same time as influenza will cause more serious infection. It doesn’t seem that viral competition will make things better.

Practically what does this mean? I believe it means it is prudent to be even more cautious during flu season than we were in spring, and to do everything possible to reduce transmission. That is going to be particularly relevant to schools. Even if one refuses to accept schools play a role in COVID19 transmission, it is established science that schools are the engines behind influenza transmission every year, so precautionary measures make sense even if just to reduce spread of flu.

Interesting Here is another peer reviewed study: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.26364 A high % of patients who died in Iran also had flu, so co infection with other viruses is a big risk factor. A further reason why flu jabs may be being rolled out.

You're clearly not a scientist OP. How the Covid treatment coming along by the way?

I find it interesting that mumsnet delete other people's posts but not ClimbDad's, when it's clear his posts are full of hyperbole and misinformation. Agenda?

If there is a significant possibility of it being airborne I wish we would treat it as airborne until proved otherwise - consequences too high especially as the windows start to close and radiators come on.

I feel I am missing s9mething here, is it just because it's a male name ? Or are people really getting in a twist as to the level of scientific proof required before we might wish to consider making any response to ward of a potential threat? But slagging off the OP is not presenting any rational rebuttal of their interpretation

I want to know more about the treatment the OP is working on. Waits with bated breath................

@midgebabe

I feel I am missing s9mething here, is it just because it's a male name ? Or are people really getting in a twist as to the level of scientific proof required before we might wish to consider making any response to ward of a potential threat? But slagging off the OP is not presenting any rational rebuttal of their interpretation

It is his use of language for drama that is the issue. He didnt offer any discussion, just "this proves it". When the article doesn't say they have proved it then why does he think he can? Like I say it is a good study but when you make a thread for "scientific discussion", but then make a sweeping statement without any discussion and you claim to be a scientist then that is not right

@Jrobhatch29 exactly. It's sad that others need this pointing out to them.

Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating,
very few survive.
George Bernard Shaw

Cherry picker?

Im glad you posted jrobhatch as that's exactly what I took from that study. If nothing else this thread has confirmed the importance of reading the actual study rather than taking someone's interpretation at face value.

For example, look at this peer reviewed article in The Lancet: www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673697110960/fulltext

Imagine if mumsnet was around in those days and ClimbDad had an antivax agenda.

@sunseekin

If there is a significant possibility of it being airborne I wish we would treat it as airborne until proved otherwise - consequences too high especially as the windows start to close and radiators come on.

Indeed. Better safe than sorry.

ClimbDad also has a habit of proclaiming very authoritatively on things that he does not actually know about, and then when people challenge him on it, accusing them of being unable to face the grim reality. He is not brilliant at accepting he might be wrong or that some people on Mumsnet might actually know more than him.

Example: a while ago he was claiming that because immunity may not be lifelong, this means life as we know it has changed forever, we can no longer take socialising and indoor events for granted ever again, and the reality of this just “hasn’t quite dawned” on people.

Now of course he has every right to speculate. But he isn’t content to just speculate like us mere mortals, he has to claim he’s an authority. He told people disagreeing with him to “read a book on what life was like” for societies that had to live with infectious diseases, because that would show he was right.

I actually do know a fair bit about what life was like for societies that had to live with infectious diseases (= most societies, ever, including lots now), and he’s just wrong about this. Wrong wrong. And more importantly, given the mental health impacts of the pandemic it is not helpful to go around telling people that your doomy predictions are the grim reality and governments all know this really but have to pretend to the sheeplike masses that life will go back to normal one day. You’re just pointlessly scaring people to process your own anxieties.

Interesting that jrob seems to be the only one who 'dismisses'climb with scientific argument or rational unpicking.

Provide some of your own to argue against him, otherwise it smells of rank hypocrisy and just trying to shut down debate and alternative viewpoints.

I actually do know a fair bit about what life was like for societies that had to live with infectious diseases (= most societies, ever, including lots now), and he’s just wrong about this. Wrong wrong. Tell us then!

Thanks for posting @ClimbDad

@Piggywaspushed

Interesting that jrob seems to be the only one who 'dismisses'climb with scientific argument or rational unpicking.

Provide some of your own to argue against him, otherwise it smells of rank hypocrisy and just trying to shut down debate and alternative viewpoints.

Just to be clear, I am not dismissing the study. I am dismissing the way it was presented in this thread as absolute proof without any discussion or acknowledgement of the limitations.

A lot of attacks on the Op here.

Tell us then!

Well in short, most societies ever have had to live with levels of infectious disease that we’d consider absolutely horrifying. That includes a lot of societies today who are living with malaria and TB which still kill millions. Our great-great-grandparents had to live alongside awful diseases which either came through in waves every so often or hung around at low levels, mostly killing the very young and the very old.

How much of this meant that socialising and indoor crowds were gone forever? None. None of it. Not even for much nastier diseases than Covid. That has never happened, humans value socialisation too much. If we didn’t give up on crowds and hugging for smallpox (very infectious and killed about 30% of people who got it), we aren’t going to do it for this.

Different people will read different studies differently.

As many on this thread have done - everyone is free to read for themselves.

And MN delete personal attacks, yes.