Coronavirus

[richardfinegold]

Very glad to see you checking back in here Richard. I think medics and a few other people (bus drivers have been mentioned) have the worst of it, because of the high number of close proximity contacts.

What I'd now like to know is whether there is any critical number of virus particles which will trigger a full blown CV-19 response, possibly leading to an emergency admission, or whether most people can tolerate a small number, with their bodies able to mount an attack against them. I'm sure that there must be ongoing research on this. Workers in health related fields are, by the very nature of their work, likely to meet many people, and many of them will have, or have had, a significant viral load.

Also herd immunity has been mentioned a few times, but noting the recent observation that the outbreak in NY appears to be a spreading of viral particles originating from Europe, I wonder if the virus adapts, and if in any way a herd effect can reduce its strength. If the virus is adapting in human populations it may, of course become even more deadly, but viruses which are highly deadly tend (so I've heard) to die out because of the lack of hosts to infect, whereas a virus which is mild in its effects can exist and spread very widely. What we seem to have at the present is a virus (or form of virus - if it's adapting fast) which is deadly, relatively long lived, and spreads rapidly and very widely.

Best wishes to you in the USA.

I don't know if anyone knows the answer to your first question. Obviously that would be difficult to study in humans, but perhaps the industrious Chinese Communist Party that formerly was selling organs from Prisoners confined in the Gulag might be working on this...
As to the second question, the main difference between Covid 19 and SARS is that Covid has an enzyme that is just super at liquifying cells in upper airways, turning them into crud that accumulates like wet sand in your lungs. This is not a quick process, leaving plenty of time for the damn thing to multiply and non social distancing people to spread in a plethora of ways. If it was so virulent that it would kill you at first low dose exposure almost instantly then yes, it would not have spread so easily.

[MrGongGong]

That really is outstepping their brief - I heard that on Today this morning - surely it's up to shops to determine number of items as being the sole criterion of essential? Next they'll be laying down what constitutes outdoor exercise and what doesn't. Tai-Chi, anyone?

They won't catch me on my bike!

Humm

I hope he has been (at the very least) been reprimanded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McVG4ZzjLxM

[Andrew]

Will they confiscate wine....? Whats the weekly allowance for that?

The guy at my local Tesco Metro give me a wink when I paid for 4 bottles of Picpoul De Pinet: "enjoy, mate!" I am!

[LeMartinPecheur]

Both the Royal Navy (as against the Merchant Navy) and the Royal Air Force are military organisations, as is the Army.

Bryn: one for Pedants' Paradise no doubt, but all definitions of 'military' in OED 1st edition (1933) speak of the army, from L. miles: a soldier. My 1972 Chambers defines 'military' as an adjective 'pertaining to soldiers, armies, or warfare: warlike'; or, as a noun 'soldiery: the army: a soldier (obs.)'. Yes, I'll concede that the navy and air force could come under 'military organisations', but not that 'military boats' is a proper description of RN vessels!

But I did say my original comment was whimsical...

[Bryn]

Bryn: one for Pedants' Paradise no doubt, but all definitions of 'military' in OED 1st edition speak of the army, from L. miles: a soldier. My 1972 Chambers defines 'military' as an adjective 'pertaining to soldiers, armies, or warfare: warlike'; or, as a noun 'soldiery: the army: a soldier (obs.)'. Yes, I'll concede that the navy and air force could come under 'military organisations', but not that 'military boats' is a proper description of RN vessels!

But I did say my original comment was whimsical...

Well, if it comes to pedantry, apart from lifeboats, the only boats the Navy have are submarines. Their other vessels are ships. I think the marines (army) have boats though. The Cambridge Dictionary has "relating to or belonging to the armed forces" as the definition of "military".

[Historian]

Well, if it comes to pedantry, apart from lifeboats, the only boats the Navy have are submarines. Their other vessels are ships. I think the marines (army) have boats though. The Cambridge Dictionary has "relating to or belonging to the armed forces" as the definition of "military".

A military (and naval) historian-pedant writes: the Royal Marines are the Royal Navy's own amphibious troops. Thus they have sometimes been described as Britain's 'Sea-soldiers'. On occasion, when there were not sufficient Marines available, soldiers from the Army were sent aboard RN ships, but that was a long time in the past.

I think that 'the military' now has a broader definition than the OED of 1933. Having said that, I still think of things relating to the Navy as 'naval' and to the Army as 'military'.

You are of course, Bryn, quite right that the RN deploys ships (with the exception of submarines), some of which carry boats.

I think that the main problem is a failure to use sufficiently precise language on the part of the BBC.

[Dave2002]

Even if credible scientific advice suggested this was a possibility I think it would be foolhardy given the current inconsistent compliance. If people still think it's OK to have gatherings/go visiting under the current system better to leave things as they are?

You are not taking into account the conditionals in my original statement. We just don't know at the present time if there is any meaningful threshold above 1 viral fragment which might be safe. At the present time, with our present incomplete state of knowledge, it seems best to avoid significant contacts with anyone else. Some people are putting themselves at risk for the greater good. Later on there may be more reliable information, which might allow modifications to our social behaviour. I don't see any significant change coming along for months, despite the incessant questioning by journalists. It may just be a sort of "game", as telling people that things aren't going to get better for another three months or even more may not lead to good social behaviour, so stringing them along week by week might be thought to be a better strategy.

[Old Grumpy]

A military (and naval) historian-pedant writes: the Royal Marines are the Royal Navy's own amphibious troops. Thus they have sometimes been described as Britain's 'Sea-soldiers'. On occasion, when there were not sufficient Marines available, soldiers from the Army were sent aboard RN ships, but that was a long time in the past.

I think that 'the military' now has a broader definition than the OED of 1933. Having said that, I still think of things relating to the Navy as 'naval' and to the Army as 'military'.

You are of course, Bryn, quite right that the RN deploys ships (with the exception of submarines), some of which carry boats.

I think that the main problem is a failure to use sufficiently precise language on the part of the BBC.

A sometime pedant writes: But in the context of the news article concerned, does it really matter?

[Bryn]

A military (and naval) historian-pedant writes: the Royal Marines are the Royal Navy's own amphibious troops. Thus they have sometimes been described as Britain's 'Sea-soldiers'. On occasion, when there were not sufficient Marines available, soldiers from the Army were sent aboard RN ships, but that was a long time in the past.

I think that 'the military' now has a broader definition than the OED of 1933. Having said that, I still think of things relating to the Navy as 'naval' and to the Army as 'military'.

You are of course, Bryn, quite right that the RN deploys ships (with the exception of submarines), some of which carry boats.

I think that the main problem is a failure to use sufficiently precise language on the part of the BBC.

Now, there's a thing. When I was based at the long-gone Wyvern Barracks in Exeter, during basic training, we spent a day at the RM assault course at Lympstone as a 'treat'. Our Platoon Commander referred to the Royal Marines, throughout, as if part of the Army.. Hence my error. It made a big impression on me because the thuggish bully of the platoon freaked out when it came to the water-filled culvert. He just could not handle it. The rest of us all thought the day great fun.

[ardcarp]

A military (and naval) historian-pedant writes: the Royal Marines are the Royal Navy's own amphibious troops. Thus they have sometimes been described as Britain's 'Sea-soldiers'

.

Am I right in thinking that in the Navy of Nelson's day (and the era Patrick O'Brian writes about) the soldiers/marines on board were as much to stop the crew turning on the officers as they were to fight on land?

[oddoneout]

Thought for the day?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2020/apr/10/martin-rowson-on-the-sacrifice-of-our-nhs-staff-cartoon

[LeMartinPecheur]

.

Am I right in thinking that in the Navy of Nelson's day (and the era Patrick O'Brian writes about) the soldiers/marines on board were as much to stop the crew turning on the officers as they were to fight on land?

While they did and do fight on land, in the days of sail wasn't their main function to give small arms fire in close ship-to-ship engagements, often from the masts ['fighting tops' - see Wiki below], directed at key officers and men on the enemy ship? Exactly the sort of fire that picked off Nelson?

EDIT Wiki : Fighting top

A fighting top was an enlarged top with swivel guns, designed to fire down at the deck of enemy ships. They could also be manned by sailors or marines armed with muskets or rifles; Horatio Nelson was killed at the Battle of Trafalgar by a sniper firing from a fighting top of the Redoutable.

[Historian]

A sometime pedant writes: But in the context of the news article concerned, does it really matter?

Not really. However, as this topic has now reached over 1500 posts I don't feel too guilty about a little diversion every now and then.

EDIT:Although if am responsible for derailing this thread (or even just being annoying) then please accept my apologies OG.

[Historian]

Now, there's a thing. When I was based at the long-gone Wyvern Barracks in Exeter, during basic training, we spent a day at the RM assault course at Lympstone as a 'treat'. Our Platoon Commander referred to the Royal Marines, throughout, as if part of the Army.. Hence my error. It made a big impression on me because the thuggish bully of the platoon freaked out when it came to the water-filled culvert. He just could not handle it. The rest of us all thought the day great fun.

Fair enough then Bryn: an evocative memory recalled, thank you. However, although the Wessex Brigade Depot is long-gone, you may be pleased to hear that Wyvern Barracks is still operational.

[Historian]

.

Am I right in thinking that in the Navy of Nelson's day (and the era Patrick O'Brian writes about) the soldiers/marines on board were as much to stop the crew turning on the officers as they were to fight on land?

Yes: one of their functions was to act as a back-up to the officers including helping suppress mutiny. Marine sentries would be on duty in front of the Captain's cabin, the powder magazine etc. This didn't always work: there were occasions when Marines joined in a mutiny. Smaller warships were not large enough to rate a marine force, Bligh's HMS Bounty being an example.