#PCR Test Clinic UK | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

heathcareforallworld · 5 months ago

Text

Trends and Projections for the Taq DNA Polymerase Market

The Taq DNA Polymerase Market is witnessing significant growth due to the increasing demand for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technologies in various fields such as medical diagnostics, biotechnology, and forensic science. As the backbone of PCR, Taq DNA polymerase is indispensable for amplifying DNA sequences, making it a crucial component in research and clinical laboratories worldwide. This article delves into the market size, share, industry trends, and forecasts for the Taq DNA polymerase market through 2032.

Market Overview

Taq DNA polymerase is a thermostable enzyme extracted from the bacterium Thermus aquaticus, which is capable of withstanding high temperatures required for PCR. This enzyme's ability to replicate DNA sequences efficiently and accurately under thermal cycling conditions has revolutionized molecular biology and genetic research.

Market Size and Share

Taq dna polymerase Market Size was estimated at 1.6 (USD Billion) in 2023. The Taq Dna Polymerase Market Industry is expected to grow from 1.69(USD Billion) in 2024 to 2.53 (USD Billion) by 2032. The taq dna polymerase Market CAGR (growth rate) is expected to be around 5.19% during the forecast period (2024 - 2032).

North America currently holds the largest market share, accounting for over 40% of the global market. This dominance is attributed to the region's well-established biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, extensive research activities, and the presence of key market players. Europe follows closely, with significant contributions from countries like Germany, the UK, and France. The Asia-Pacific region is expected to witness the fastest growth, driven by increasing investments in biotechnology, rising healthcare expenditure, and growing awareness about molecular diagnostics.

Industry Trends

Technological Advancements: The Taq DNA polymerase market is benefiting from continuous technological innovations. The development of high-fidelity and fast-cycling Taq polymerases has enhanced the efficiency and accuracy of PCR, expanding its applications in various fields.

Rising Demand for Molecular Diagnostics: The increasing prevalence of infectious diseases, genetic disorders, and cancer has fueled the demand for molecular diagnostics. Taq DNA polymerase plays a crucial role in diagnostic assays, including COVID-19 testing, driving market growth.

Expansion of Personalized Medicine: The shift towards personalized medicine, which relies on genetic profiling for tailored treatments, is boosting the demand for Taq DNA polymerase. PCR-based techniques are integral to genetic testing and the development of personalized therapies.

Growing Research and Development Activities: The surge in research and development activities in genomics, proteomics, and biotechnology is propelling the demand for Taq DNA polymerase. Government and private sector investments in research are further stimulating market growth.

Increased Forensic Applications: The application of PCR in forensic science for DNA profiling and criminal investigations is expanding. Taq DNA polymerase is a vital tool in forensic labs, aiding in the accurate identification of individuals from biological samples.

Market Drivers

Advancements in PCR Technology: Innovations such as real-time PCR (qPCR) and digital PCR (dPCR) are driving the adoption of Taq DNA polymerase. These advanced techniques offer higher sensitivity, specificity, and quantification capabilities, broadening the scope of PCR applications.

Growing Biotechnology Industry: The biotechnology industry's rapid growth, coupled with increasing investments in genetic research, is boosting the demand for Taq DNA polymerase. The enzyme is essential for various applications, including cloning, sequencing, and gene expression analysis.

Increasing Prevalence of Genetic Disorders: The rising incidence of genetic disorders and the need for early diagnosis and treatment are driving the demand for PCR-based diagnostic tests. Taq DNA polymerase is a key component in these tests, contributing to market growth.

COVID-19 Pandemic: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly increased the demand for PCR testing, highlighting the importance of Taq DNA polymerase. The enzyme's critical role in detecting the virus has led to a surge in production and sales.

Challenges

High Cost of Enzyme Production: The production of high-quality Taq DNA polymerase involves complex processes and significant investment, leading to high costs. This can be a barrier for small-scale laboratories and research institutions.

Competition from Alternative Enzymes: The market faces competition from alternative DNA polymerases with improved properties, such as higher fidelity and faster cycling times. The development and adoption of these alternatives can impact the market share of Taq DNA polymerase.

Stringent Regulatory Requirements: The stringent regulatory requirements for the approval and commercialization of diagnostic and research products can pose challenges for market players. Compliance with these regulations can be time-consuming and costly.

Market Forecast (2024-2032)

The Taq DNA polymerase market is poised for substantial growth over the forecast period. Key factors contributing to this growth include:

Expanding Applications in Diagnostics and Research: The ongoing advancements in PCR technology and the expanding applications in diagnostics and research are expected to drive market growth. The enzyme's versatility and reliability make it indispensable in various fields.

Increasing Investments in Biotechnology: The increasing investments in biotechnology and genetic research by governments, private companies, and research institutions will propel the demand for Taq DNA polymerase. The enzyme's role in groundbreaking research and development activities will continue to drive market expansion.

Emerging Markets in Asia-Pacific: The Asia-Pacific region is expected to witness the fastest growth, driven by rising healthcare expenditure, increasing biotechnology investments, and growing awareness about molecular diagnostics. Countries like China, India, and Japan are key markets to watch.

Adoption of Personalized Medicine: The shift towards personalized medicine and the growing demand for genetic testing will boost the market for Taq DNA polymerase. The enzyme's critical role in genetic analysis and the development of personalized therapies will drive its adoption.

Conclusion

The Taq DNA polymerase market is on a robust growth trajectory, driven by technological advancements, increasing demand for molecular diagnostics, and expanding research and development activities. Key players in the industry are focusing on product development, strategic collaborations, and expanding their geographical presence to capitalize on the growing demand for Taq DNA polymerase.

#markettrends #marketreport #health and wellness #heathcare #marketresearch

0 notes

adityarana1687-blog · 11 months ago

Text

In Vitro Diagnostics Market To Reach $101.58 Billion By 2030

The global in vitro diagnostics market size is expected to reach USD 101.58 billion by 2030, according to a new report by Grand View Research, Inc. It is estimated to register a CAGR of 4.4% over the forecast period driven by the increasing geriatric population, COVID-19 pandemic, and technological advancements in diagnostics that are supporting its adoption. Technological advancements in terms of portability, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness are projected to be one of the high-impact rendering drivers. Technological advancements were further accelerated by the launch of COVID-19 IVD diagnostics and enhanced the adoption of instruments and consumables for technologies, such as PCR. Competitors in the market are increasingly adopting agreement and partnership strategies to maintain a constant flow of business for manufacturers & diagnostics for users.

These agreements are also a result of the harsh price containment strategies for government laboratories, which lowers the price in government settings. For instance, in April 2021, the Italian subsidiary of Seegene, Inc. received a USD 108.25 million tenders for public procurement for the supply of extraction reagents, as well as 7.15 million SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests. However, it increases the multiparty nature and complexity of the supply chain. The high prevalence of cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases (CVDs) globally is anticipated to drive diagnostic innovation to facilitate early diagnosis and meet the constantly evolving needs of consumers. Novel technologies, such as plasmonic PCR, are anticipated to commercially enter the market during the forecast period, influencing the business of existing products adversely.

Request a free sample copy or view the report summary: In Vitro Diagnostics Market Report

In Vitro Diagnostics Market Report Highlights

Molecular diagnostics is anticipated to grow at the fastest CAGR from 2024 to 2030 owing to the rising adoption and usage rate

Reagents held the largest market share owing to the surge in demand for genetic testing and enhanced availability of technologically advanced diagnostic tests in lower and middle-income countries with unmet clinical needs

The infectious diseases application segment held the largest market share owing to the large volume of testing for infectious diseases globally

North America dominated the global market in 2023 owing to the high demand for novel technologies, a large pool of key players, high prevalence of diseases, and advanced healthcare infrastructure

In Vitro Diagnostics Market Segmentation

Grand View Research has segmented the global in vitro diagnostics (IVD) market report based on product, technology, application, end-use, test location, and region:

IVD Product Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2018 - 2030)

Instruments

Reagents

Services

IVD Technology Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2018 - 2030)

Immunoassay

Instruments

Reagents

Services

Hematology

Instruments

Reagents

Services

Clinical Chemistry

Instruments

Reagents

Services

Molecular Diagnostics

Instruments

Reagents

Services

Coagulation

Instruments

Reagents

Services

Microbiology

Instruments

Reagents

Services

Others

Instruments

Reagents

Services

IVD Application Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2018 - 2030)

Infectious Diseases

Diabetes

Oncology

Cardiology

Nephrology

Autoimmune Diseases

Drug Testing

Others

IVD Test Location Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2018 - 2030)

Point of Care

Home-care

Others

IVD End-use Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2018 - 2030)

Hospitals

Laboratory

Home-care

Others

IVD Regional Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2018 - 2030)

North America

U.S.

Canada

Europe

Germany

France

Spain

Italy

Russia

Denmark

Sweden

Norway

Asia Pacific

Japan

China

India

South Korea

Australia

Thailand

Singapore

Latin America

Brazil

Mexico

Argentina

Middle East and Africa (MEA)

South Africa

Saudi Arabia

UAE

Kuwait

List of Key Players of In Vitro Diagnostics (IVD) Market

Abbott

bioMérieux SA

QuidelOrtho Corporation

Siemens Healthineers AG

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.

Qiagen

Sysmex Corporation

Charles River Laboratories

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated

Agilent Technologies, Inc.

Danaher Corporation

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

#In Vitro Diagnostics Market

0 notes

swiftclinic · 2 years ago

Text

youtube

Business Name: Swift Clinic

Street Address: 7 Elmfield Road

City: Bromley

Zip Code: BR1 1LT

Country: United Kingdom

Business Phone: 020 3814 9355

Business Email: [email protected]

Website: https://www.swiftclinic.co.uk/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/swifthealthclinic

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/linkers-travel-health/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/swift_clinic/

GMB Site: https://blood-tests-covid-testing-bromley.business.site/

Business Description: Swift Clinic is a UKAS registered Healthcare service Provider. We are listed on GOV UK as a private Covid-19 Travel Testing service provider.We are registered with the Department of Heath & Social Care (DHSC) and working with UKAS to achieve ISO/IEC 15189:2012 We provide both PCR and Antigen tests with travel certificates. Results in as quick as 3 hours. Our healthcare scientists are experienced and qualified experts in their field of work. Swift Clinic is the trading name of Linkers Travel Health based in Bromley. We also cover Lewisham, Crystal Palace, Croydon, Orpington, Sidcup, South East London, East Ham, Stratford and Barking.

Google My Business CID URL: https://www.google.com/maps?cid=3798232879209613395

Business Hours: Sunday Closed Monday 9am-5pm Tuesday 9am-5pm Wednesday 9am-5pm Thursday 9am-5pm Friday 9am-5pm Saturday 9am-5pm

Services: Blood Test, COVID Test

Keywords: Blood testing in Bromley, Prostate Testing, Cholesterol Testing, Pregnancy Testing, Allergy testing, Cholesterol Testing, Diabetes Testing, Erectile Dysfunction Testing, Sexual health testing, STD testing, Fertility testing

Location:

Service Areas:

#Youtube

1 note · View note

theo-decker · 2 years ago

Text

I have to present a certificate of a negative PCR test before I go and I just had a panic attack at the realisation Im going to have to battle with the UK's health system a final time. The NHS now doesnt provide PCR tests. Yes this is fucking insane but it is what it is. I do not know where I can get a PCR done privately in my town. You can get home PCR tests but I think that doesnt give you a certificate. There are special travel clinics you can go to down south, but I cant afford to travel again. i dont want to leave it to moving day and have to run from the airport to a travel clinic and pray to god I can get a result within 4 hours before I go. Im going to cry lol.

#Emery 2k22

5 notes · View notes

appalachiananarchist · 3 years ago

Text

Additional resources and studies that I have looked at listed below! As I’ve said in a few other posts, I intentionally did not post tons and tons of studies because I knew no one would have time to click through them all and I wanted to keep it short and sweet. However, I do want to provide more resources for people who are inclined to keep reading about this, so here are a few more studies. I may just start doing this every so often, where I post links/results from whatever I’ve been reading. A link to full article is included in the title of each. I don’t really intend to add much of my own commentary here. Just providing things for your own reading and criticism.

A few additional studies and data sets, including the early randomized controlled trials for the mRNA vaccines, are discussed in the original post, and further discussion of mortality associated with vaccination is discussed in this follow up.

1. Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant

Study defined COVID-19 as a positive PCR test with symptoms. Children under age 16 were excluded, as were people with previous positive testing. A weakness of the study is that it is observational, and you can read about what the authors say regarding this toward the end of the article.

Results: “Effectiveness after one dose of vaccine (BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) was notably lower among persons with the delta variant (30.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 25.2 to 35.7) than among those with the alpha variant (48.7%; 95% CI, 45.5 to 51.7); the results were similar for both vaccines. With the BNT162b2 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 93.7% (95% CI, 91.6 to 95.3) among persons with the alpha variant and 88.0% (95% CI, 85.3 to 90.1) among those with the delta variant. With the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 74.5% (95% CI, 68.4 to 79.4) among persons with the alpha variant and 67.0% (95% CI, 61.3 to 71.8) among those with the delta variant.”

Authors’ conclusions: “Only modest differences in vaccine effectiveness were noted with the delta variant as compared with the alpha variant after the receipt of two vaccine doses. Absolute differences in vaccine effectiveness were more marked after the receipt of the first dose. This finding would support efforts to maximize vaccine uptake with two doses among vulnerable populations.”

2. BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Mass Vaccination Setting

This study out of Israel looked at vaccine effectiveness against a variety of outcomes including infection, symptomatic infection, severe disease, and death using a pretty impressive sample size.

Results: “Each study group included 596,618 persons. Estimated vaccine effectiveness for the study outcomes at days 14 through 20 after the first dose and at 7 or more days after the second dose was as follows: for documented infection, 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40 to 51) and 92% (95% CI, 88 to 95); for symptomatic Covid-19, 57% (95% CI, 50 to 63) and 94% (95% CI, 87 to 98); for hospitalization, 74% (95% CI, 56 to 86) and 87% (95% CI, 55 to 100); and for severe disease, 62% (95% CI, 39 to 80) and 92% (95% CI, 75 to 100), respectively. Estimated effectiveness in preventing death from Covid-19 was 72% (95% CI, 19 to 100) for days 14 through 20 after the first dose. Estimated effectiveness in specific subpopulations assessed for documented infection and symptomatic Covid-19 was consistent across age groups, with potentially slightly lower effectiveness in persons with multiple coexisting conditions.”

Authors’ conclusions: “This study in a nationwide mass vaccination setting suggests that the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine is effective for a wide range of Covid-19-related outcomes, a finding consistent with that of the randomized trial.”

3. Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

This study involved an RCT looking at a viral vector vaccine rather than mRNA vaccine. Overall efficacy appears to be high, but slightly lower than what we are seeing with some other mRNA ones. This study also followed outcomes for those who got COVID-19, and only people in the control arm (i.e., the ones who got a placebo) got seriously ill or died from COVID.

Results: “Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation.“

Authors’ conclusion: “ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials.”

4. Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines on covid-19 related symptoms, hospital admissions, and mortality in older adults in England: test negative case-control study

This one is a case control study looking at effectivnes of two different vaccines against a variety of outcomes.

Results Participants aged 80 years and older vaccinated with BNT162b2 before 4 January 2021 had a higher odds of testing positive for covid-19 in the first nine days after vaccination (odds ratio up to 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.77), indicating that those initially targeted had a higher underlying risk of infection. Vaccine effectiveness was therefore compared with the baseline post-vaccination period. Vaccine effects were noted 10 to 13 days after vaccination, reaching a vaccine effectiveness of 70% (95% confidence interval 59% to 78%), then plateauing. From 14 days after the second dose a vaccination effectiveness of 89% (85% to 93%) was found compared with the increased baseline risk. Participants aged 70 years and older vaccinated from 4 January (when ChAdOx1-S delivery commenced) had a similar underlying risk of covid-19 to unvaccinated individuals. With BNT162b2, vaccine effectiveness reached 61% (51% to 69%) from 28 to 34 days after vaccination, then plateaued. With ChAdOx1-S, effects were seen from 14 to 20 days after vaccination, reaching an effectiveness of 60% (41% to 73%) from 28 to 34 days, increasing to 73% (27% to 90%) from day 35 onwards. On top of the protection against symptomatic disease, a further 43% (33% to 52%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission and 51% (37% to 62%) reduced risk of death was observed in those who had received one dose of BNT162b2. Participants who had received one dose of ChAdOx1-S had a further 37% (3% to 59%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission. Follow-up was insufficient to assess the effect of ChAdOx1-S on mortality. Combined with the effect against symptomatic disease, a single dose of either vaccine was about 80% effective at preventing admission to hospital with covid-19 and a single dose of BNT162b2 was 85% effective at preventing death with covid-19.

Authors’ conclusion: Vaccination with either one dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic covid-19 in older adults, and with further protection against severe disease. Both vaccines showed similar effects. Protection was maintained for the duration of follow-up (>6 weeks). A second dose of BNT162b2 was associated with further protection against symptomatic disease. A clear effect of the vaccines against the B.1.1.7 variant was found.

#covid #covid-19 #pandemic #vaccination

24 notes · View notes

fittoflypcruk · 3 years ago

Link

1 note · View note

healthclinicslimited · 3 years ago

Text

Travel testing guide for the UK’s most popular holiday destinations

PCR? Lateral Flow? 48 or 72 hours? Quarantine or no quarantine? Each country has its own Covid-19 travel rules to follow – both before you leave the UK and on arrival. We’ve listed the key requirements for some of the most popular holiday destinations from the UK.

The information in this guide is reviewed and updated regularly. Last updated: 07/09/21.

Please ensure you review the Foreign Office guidance and government and tourist websites for your destination. The arrival information is for entry into England only. If you are travelling to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, please check here as the requirements may be different.

Covid19 health Clinic provides accurate, affordable & reliable private Covid tests to the public at various walk-in locations across the UK. Book online your private Covid test in UK Today!

Jump to Country:

Croatia

France

Germany

Greece

Italy

Malta

Portugal

Spain

USA

Croatia

: Green Watchlist

Who can enter Croatia ?

Croatia is open for travellers from all countries with various entry requirements.

Departure test required ?

Yes – for all travellers aged 12 years and over, regardless of whether they are fully vaccinated or not.

No – for all children under the age of 12 years accompanied by a parent or guardian.

Which departure tests are accepted?

Lateral Flow Antigen Fit to Fly Tests and PCR Fit to Fly Tests.

Testing window :

For PCR: 72 hours before travel.

For Lateral Flow Antigen: 48 hours before travel.

Quarantine on arrival ?

No.

Required arrival documentation ?

A completed Traveller Health Declaration (completed 24 hours before arrival)

Pre-return test required ?

Yes – for everyone aged 11 or over.

Testing window :

Within 3 days before arriving in England.

Which pre-return tests are accepted ?

Take a Return Antigen test abroad with you or find a local testing centre in Croatia.

Arrival tests & quarantine ?

Croatia is on the green watchlist.

Everyone entering England from a green list country does not need to quarantine, but must take a PCR test on arrival day 2. The day of arrival in England = day 0.

More information ? https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/croatia

France

: Amber List

Who can enter France ?

All fully vaccinated travellers from the UK. Non-fully vaccinated travellers from the UK must give an essential reason to be allowed to enter France.

Departure test required ?

No – for fully vaccinated adults.

Yes – for children aged 12 and over travelling with fully vaccinated adults.

Yes – for travellers who are not fully vaccinated but are allowed to enter France for essential reasons.

Which departure tests are accepted?

Lateral Flow Antigen Fit to Fly Tests and PCR Fit to Fly Tests.

Testing window :

48 hours before travel.

Quarantine on arrival ?

No – for fully vaccinated adults and accompanying over 12s.

Yes – 7 days isolation for not fully vaccinated adults and accompanying over 12s.

Required arrival documentation ?

A completed Sworn Statement.

Vaccination Proof: NHS Covid Pass for travellers from England and Wales

NHS letters for travellers from Scotland

Covid certificate for travellers from Northern Ireland

Pre-return test required ?

Yes – for everyone aged 11 or over.

Testing window :

Within 3 days before arriving in England.

Which pre-return tests are accepted ?

Take a Return Antigen test abroad with you or find a local testing centre in France.

Arrival tests & quarantine ?

France is on the amber travel list.

Everyone aged 11 or over entering England from an amber list country who have been fully vaccinated in the UK, US or EU will need to take a PCR test on arrival day 2. Children aged 5-10 will also need to test on day 2. The day of arrival in England = day 0.

Anyone aged 18+ entering England from an amber list country who hasn’t been fully vaccinated in the UK, US or EU will need to quarantine at home for 10 days and take two PCR tests on arrival day 2 and day 8, with the option to reduce the quarantine period by taking an additional PCR test on day 5.

The quarantine requirement has been lifted for all under 18s.

Germany

: Green List

Who can enter Germany ?

Germany is open for Citizens and Residents, Family Members, and Diplomats. UK residents may only enter Germany if they are serving an important role, there is an urgent need to travel, or if they are fully vaccinated.

Departure test required ?

No – for fully vaccinated adults.

No – for travellers who have proof of recovery from Covid-19.

Yes – for travellers who are not fully vaccinated.

N.B. Minors between the ages of 12-17 are only allowed to enter Germany if they have an urgent need or if they have been fully vaccinated.

Which departure tests are accepted?

Lateral Flow Antigen Fit to Fly Tests and PCR Fit to Fly Tests.

Testing window :

For PCR: 72 hours before travel.

For Lateral Flow Antigen: 48 hours before travel.

Quarantine on arrival ?

Yes – for travellers arriving in Germany from a high-risk area (e.g. the UK) have to quarantine for 10 days on entering Germany. Travellers arriving in Germany after having been in a high-risk area can end their home quarantine early if they submit proof of vaccination or proof of recovery via the entry portal. Alternatively, from day 5 they also have the option of doing a “test to release” and submitting proof of a negative test.

Yes – for children under the age of 12 years. 10 days quarantine on arrival but can end early by presenting a vaccination / recovery certificate. Alternatively, quarantine can be ended early with a negative Covid-19 test on the fifth day after entry.

Required arrival documentation ?

A completed Digital Registration on Entry.

Vaccination Proof: NHS vaccination certificate.

Pre-return test required ?

Yes – for everyone aged 11 or over.

Testing window :

Within 3 days before arriving in England.

Which pre-return tests are accepted ?

Take a Return Antigen test abroad with you or find a local testing centre in Germany.

Arrival tests & quarantine ?

Germany is on the green list.

Everyone entering England from a green list country does not need to quarantine but must take a PCR test on arrival day 2. The day of arrival in England = day 0.

Greece

: Amber List

Who can enter Greece ?

Greece is allowing entry for EU and Schengen citizens, and for individuals residing permanently in the US, EU, and Schengen states, and certain other countries.

Departure test required ?

No – for fully vaccinated adults.

No – for travellers who have proof of recovery from Covid-19 (a positive PCR result dated 30-180 days before travel).

Yes – for travellers who are not fully vaccinated.

Yes – for children aged 12 or over.

Which departure tests are accepted?

PCR Fit to Fly Tests only.

Testing window :

72 hours before travel.

Quarantine on arrival ?

No.

N.B. You may have to take a rapid Covid-19 test on arrival in Greece, with a quarantine in a hotel for at least 10 days if positive. You may also have to self-isolate if other passengers on your flight or ferry test positive for Covid-19.

Required arrival documentation ?

A completed Passenger Locator Form.

Vaccination Proof: NHS Covid Pass for travellers from England and Wales

NHS letters for travellers from Scotland

Covid certificate for travellers from Northern Ireland

Pre-return test required ?

Yes – for everyone aged 11 or over.

Testing window :

Within 3 days before arriving in England.

Which pre-return tests are accepted ?

Take a Return Antigen test abroad with you or find a local testing centre in Greece.

Arrival tests & quarantine ?

Greece is on the amber travel list.

The quarantine requirement has been lifted for all under 18s.

Italy

: Amber List

Who can enter Italy ?

Italy is open for travellers arriving from within the EU and Schengen member countries, as well as those arriving from countries defined as safe by the EU.

Departure test required ?

Yes – for all travellers over the age of 6 years.

Which departure tests are accepted?

Lateral Flow Antigen Fit to Fly Tests and PCR Fit to Fly Tests.

Testing window :

48 hours before entry to Italy.

Quarantine on arrival ?

No – for fully vaccinated travellers. Yes – for unvaccinated travellers and those arriving without proof of vaccination and a negative test will be required to self-isolate for 5 days.

N.B. Travellers will need to contact the regional health office (ASL) to inform them where you will be completing the quarantine period as you will be under surveillance. A test will be required at the end of the 5 day period.

Children under the age of 6, from the UK, do not need to test but are not exempt from self-isolation.

Required arrival documentation ?

A completed online digital form.

Pre-return test required ?

Yes – for everyone aged 11 or over.

Testing window :

Within 3 days before arriving in England.

Which pre-return tests are accepted ?

Take a Return Antigen test abroad with you or find a local testing centre in Italy.

Arrival tests & quarantine ?

Italy is on the amber travel list.

The quarantine requirement has been lifted for all under 18s.

Malta

: Green List

Who can enter Malta ?

Anyone aged 12 and over can travel to Malta as long as they hold a certificate of full vaccination for an EMA-approved COVID 19 Vaccine, including EU Digital COVID Certificates, Maltese and NHS (UK) certificates.

Departure test required ?

No – for fully vaccinated adults.

Yes – for children aged 5-11 travelling with fully vaccinated adults.

N.B. Children aged 12-18 will only be able to travel if they have proof of full vaccination.

Which departure tests are accepted?

Lateral Flow Antigen Fit to Fly Tests and PCR Fit to Fly Tests.

Testing window :

For PCR: 72 hours before travel.

For Lateral Flow Antigen: 48 hours before travel.

Quarantine on arrival ?

No.

Required arrival documentation ?

A completed online Passenger Locator Form

Vaccination Proof: NHS Covid Pass for travellers from England and Wales

NHS letters for travellers from Scotland

Covid certificate for travellers from Northern Ireland

Pre-return test required ?

Yes – for everyone aged 11 or over.

Testing window :

Within 3 days before arriving in England.

Which pre-return tests are accepted ?

Take a Return Antigen test abroad with you or find a local testing centre in Malta.

Arrival tests & quarantine ?

Malta is on the green list.

Everyone entering England from a green list country does not need to quarantine but must take a PCR test on arrival day 2. The day of arrival in England = day 0.

Portugal (including the Azores)

: Amber List N.B. Madeira is on the green watchlist. The Azores will move to the green list at 4am on Monday 30th August.

Who can travel to Portugal ?

All travellers from the UK can enter Portugal, however, there are entry restrictions. If you travel to mainland Portugal from the UK, you must quarantine for 14 days unless you can prove you are fully vaccinated with an EU-approved vaccination. Children under 18 years travelling with a fully vaccinated adult do not have to quarantine.

Departure test required ?

No – for fully vaccinated travellers.

Yes – for all travellers who are not fully-vaccinated aged 12 and over.

Which departure tests are accepted?

Lateral Flow Antigen Fit to Fly Tests and PCR Fit to Fly Tests.

Testing window :

For PCR: 72 hours before travel.

For Lateral Flow Antigen: 48 hours before travel.

Quarantine on arrival ?

No – for fully vaccinated travellers.

No – for children under 18 years old, as long as they travel accompanied by their parents, or a guardian who is fully vaccinated.

Yes – for 14 days, for travellers who are not fully vaccinated.

Required arrival documentation ?

All travellers: a completed Passenger Locator Card.

Vaccination Proof: NHS Covid Pass for travellers from England and Wales

NHS letters for travellers from Scotland

Covid certificate for travellers from Northern Ireland 3. For unvaccinated travellers: a completed Isolation Form.

Pre-return test required ?

Yes – for everyone aged 11 or over.

Testing window :

Within 3 days before arriving in England.

Which pre-return tests are accepted ?

Take a Return Antigen test abroad with you or find a local testing centre in Portugal.

Arrival tests & quarantine ?

Portugal is on the amber travel list.

The quarantine requirement has been lifted for all under 18s.

Madeira is on the green watchlist. The Azores are being added to the green list on Monday 30th August. If you arrive before 4am on 30th August from the Azores, please follow the rules above. If arriving after 4am 30th August, follow the rules below.

Everyone entering England from a green watchlist country does not need to quarantine but must take a PCR test on arrival day 2. The day of arrival in England = day 0.

Spain (including the Balearic Islands and the Canary Islands)

: Amber list

Who can travel to Spain ?

Spain is open for travellers arriving from within the EU and Schengen member countries, as well as those arriving from certain other third countries listed in the Annex or for travellers with valid vaccination certificates.

Departure test required ?

No – for fully vaccinated adults.

Yes – for children aged 12 and over travelling with fully vaccinated adults.

Yes – for travellers who are not fully vaccinated.

Which departure tests are accepted?

PCR Fit to Fly Tests only.

Testing window :

72 hours before travel.

Quarantine on arrival ?

No.

Required arrival documentation ?

A completed Health Control Form (completed no more than 48 hours before travelling to Spain by air or sea)

Vaccination Proof: NHS Covid Pass for travellers from England and Wales

NHS letters for travellers from Scotland

Covid certificate for travellers from Northern Ireland

Pre-return test required ?

Yes – for everyone aged 11 or over.

Testing window :

Within 3 days before arriving in England.

Which pre-return tests are accepted ?

Take a Return Antigen test abroad with you or find a local testing centre in Spain.

Arrival tests & quarantine ?

Spain (including the Balearic Islands and the Canary Islands) is on the amber travel list.

The quarantine requirement has been lifted for all under 18s.

USA

: Amber list

Who can travel to the USA ?

It is not possible for most British nationals to enter the USA if they have been in the UK, Ireland, Schengen zone, and a number of other countries, within the previous 14 days. US citizens and permanent residents of the USA, certain specified close family members, and certain other limited categories of visas holders (such as UN staff and diplomats) are exempt. They will still be able to enter the USA, subject to normal entry requirements.

Departure test required ?

Yes – for all travellers.

Which departure tests are accepted?

The USA requires pre-departure tests to meet the requirements stated by the CDC. Tests can be either antigen tests or PCR tests. Self-tests (e.g. at home test kits) are acceptable if they include a telehealth service affiliated with the manufacturer of the test that provides real-time supervision remotely through an audio and video connection.

Testing window :

No more than 3 days before departure.

Quarantine on arrival ?

No – for fully vaccinated travellers with an FDA-authorised vaccine. Travellers must complete a viral test (e.g. Antigen or PCR test) 3 to 5 days after travel.

No – for those who have recovered from a documented case of Covid-19 within the last 3 months. These individuals should follow all requirements and recommendations for fully vaccinated travellers, with the exception of testing 3 to 5 days after travel.

Yes, for 7 days – for travellers who are not fully vaccinated. Unvaccinated travellers must complete a viral test (e.g. Antigen or PCR test) 3 to 5 days after travel.

Required arrival documentation ?

Consult the US State Department website to determine which documents you will need.

Pre-return test required ?

Yes – for everyone aged 11 or over.

Testing window :

Within 3 days before arriving in England.

Which pre-return tests are accepted ?

Take a Return Antigen test abroad with you or find a local testing centre in the USA.

Arrival tests & quarantine ?

The USA is on the amber travel list.

The quarantine requirement has been lifted for all under 18s.

1 note · View note

marketresearchhealthcarefuture · 4 years ago

Text

Neurodiagnostics Market Size, Share, Trends, CAGR Status, Growth Opportunities

Market Highlights

According to MRFR analysis, the Global Neurodiagnostics Market is expected to register a CAGR of 6.88% from 2019 to 2025 and held a value of USD 4,848.48 Million in 2018.

Neurodiagnostic tests which are also known as neurodiagnostics. records and monitors electrical activities of patient’s peripheral nerves, spinal cord, and brain. These tests help physicians to confirm or rule out a neurological disorder or other medical condition. The growth of the global neurodiagnostics market is boosted by factors such as rising number of strategic initiatives by key players such as mergers, joint ventures, acquisitions, partnerships, coupled with the advancements in technology across the globe. Furthermore, many non-profit organizations in various countries are working towards creating awareness regarding neurological diseases. For instance, the World Federation of Neurology (WFN), founded in July 2016, is a membership organization focused on raising awareness about the age and neurological conditions and diseases associated with age.

However, the high cost of neurodiagnostic treatment is likely to restrain the market growth to a certain extent in the coming years.

Market players such as GE Healthcare, Siemens Healthineers, Philips Healthcare, and Hitachi, Ltd., currently dominate the global neurodiagnostics market. The key players are involved in product launches and agreements to strengthen their market positions. For instance, in December 2019, GE Healthcare (US), signed USD 100 million technology partnership agreement with AFFIDEA (Ireland). GE Healthcare will install 200+ new equipment in Affidea’s network of centers across Europe. The deal includes the provision of 60 new MRIs, 50 ultrasound devices, 40 CT scanners and 30 X-rays machines in the next 3 years. It also includes a six-year service contract.

Regional Analysis

The market has been divided, by region, into the Americas, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and the Middle East & Africa. The Americas held maximum share in the base year 2018, owing to the high incidence rates of neurological disorders in countries such as US. According to the American Neurological Association, as of 2016, mealy 100 million Americans were affected by at least one of the neurological diseases. The neurodiagnostics market in the Americas has further been branched into North America and Latin America, with the North American market divided into the US and Canada. The European neurodiagnostics market has been categorized as Western Europe and Eastern Europe. The Western European market has further been classified as Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Spain, and the rest of Western Europe. The neurodiagnostics market in Asia-Pacific has been segmented into Japan, China, India, South Korea, Australia, and the rest of Asia-Pacific. The neurodiagnostics market in this region is anticipated to be the fastest-growing during the assessment period due to the increasing awareness about the diagnostic treatments and favorable reimbursement policies. The neurodiagnostics market in the Middle East & Africa has been divided into the Middle East and Africa.

Segmentation

The Global Neurodiagnostics Market size has been segmented based on Product, Condition, and End User.

The market, based on product type, has been divided into diagnostic imaging systems, clinical diagnostic instruments, and reagents & consumables. The diagnostic imaging systems segment held a major share in 2018 owing to the rising number of diagnostic laboratories an imaging centers in the developing as well as developed countries. The reagents & consumables was the fastest-growing segment in 2018 due to high consumption in various routine techniques. The market, based on diagnostic imaging systems, has been further segment is segmented as, MRI systems, EEG systems, CT scanners, PET scanners, EMG devices, ultrasound imaging systems, MEG devices, angiography systems, and others. The market, based on clinical diagnostic instruments has been further bifurcated into PCR instruments, NGS instruments, sanger sequencers, and others. The market, based on reagents & consumables has been further segmented into media & sera, antibodies, buffers, solvents, enzymes, proteins, & peptides, probes, and other.

The global neurodiagnostics market has been segmented, based on the condition, into neurodegenerative diseases, stroke, epilepsy, headache disorders, sleep disorders, and others. In 2018, stoke segment held the majority share of the market owing to the growing geriatric population. The neurodegenerative diseases segment is anticipated to be the fastest growing during the forecast period due to the high number of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease population.

The global neurodiagnostics market, based on end user, has been segmented into hospitals & surgical centers, diagnostic laboratories & imaging centers, neurology centers, ambulatory care centers, and research laboratories & academic institutes. The hospitals & surgical centers segment held the maximum share in 2018 owing to its high purchasing power to buy expensive equipment. The neurology centers segment is expected to be the fastest-growing during the assessment period due to the lower cost and short waiting period compared to hospitals.

Browse Full Report Details @ https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/neurodiagnostics-market-8762

Key Players

Some of the key players in the global neurodiagnostic market are GE Healthcare (US), Siemens Healthineers (Germany), Philips Healthcare (Netherlands), Hitachi, Ltd. (Japan), Canon, Inc. (Japan), Lifelines Neuro Company, LLC (US), Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. (US), FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation (Japan), Mitsar Co., Ltd. (Russia), Natus Medical Incorporated (US), Hoffman-La Roche AG (Switzerland), and QIAGEN N.V. (Netherlands).

1 note · View note

norbert-weber · 4 years ago

Text

https://www.aier.org/article/an-education-in-viruses-and-public-health-from-michael-yeadon-former-vp-of-pfizer/

➖➖➖Dr. Michael Yeadon is an Allergy & Respiratory Therapeutic Area expert with 23 years in the pharmaceutical industry. He trained as a biochemist and pharmacologist, obtaining his PhD from the University of Surrey (UK) in 1988.

Dr. Yeadon then worked at the Wellcome Research Labs with Salvador Moncada with a research focus on airway hyper-responsiveness and effects of pollutants including ozone and working in drug discovery of 5-LO, COX, PAF, NO and lung inflammation. With colleagues, he was the first to detect exhaled NO in animals and later to induce NOS in lung via allergic triggers.

Joining Pfizer in 1995, he was responsible for the growth and portfolio delivery of the Allergy & Respiratory pipeline within the company. He was responsible for target selection and the progress into humans of new molecules, leading teams of up to 200 staff across all disciplines and won an Achievement Award for productivity in 2008.

Under his leadership the research unit invented oral and inhaled NCEs which delivered multiple positive clinical proofs of concept in asthma, allergic rhinitis and COPD. He led productive collaborations such as with Rigel Pharmaceuticals (SYK inhibitors) and was involved in the licensing of Spiriva and acquisition of the Meridica (inhaler device) company.

Dr. Yeadon has published over 40 original research articles and now consults and partners with a number of biotechnology companies. Before working with Apellis, Dr. Yeadon was VP and Chief Scientific Officer (Allergy & Respiratory Research) with Pfizer.

Below is a transcript of the video above:

My name is Dr Michael Yeadon.

My original training was a first-class honours degree in biochemistry and toxicology. Followed by a research-based PhD into respiratory pharmacology; and after that I’ve worked my entire life, uh, on the research side of the pharmaceutical industry – both big pharma and also biotech. My specific focus has been inflammation, immunology, allergy in the context of respiratory diseases (so the lung, but also the skin). So I would say I’m a kind of a deeply experienced inflammation, immunology, pulmonology kind of research person.

I initially became concerned about, the, our response to the coronavirus pandemic towards the middle or back end of April as early as that. It had become clear that if you look at the number of daily deaths versus the date the pandemic had turned. Really, pleasingly, already the wave was fundamentally over, and we would just watch it fall for a number of months – which is what it did. And so I became very perturbed about increasing restrictions on the behavior and movement of people in my country and I could see no reason for it then and I still don’t.

Government’s response to emergencies is guided by the scientific group who sit together under the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies or SAGE. So they should provide scientific advice to the government about what’s appropriate to do. SAGE has got several things wrong, and that has led to advice that’s inappropriate and – uh, not only has had horrible economic effects, but has had continuing medical effects in that people are no longer being treated properly.

SAGE took the view that since SARS-CoV-2 was a new virus that they believed there wouldn’t be any immunity at all in the population. So, I think that’s the first thing. I remember hearing that and I puzzled, because I already knew – because I read the scientific literature that SARS-CoV-2 was 80% similar to another virus you may have heard of called SARS that moved around the world a bit in 2003, and more than that: it’s quite similar, in pieces of it, to common cold-causing coronaviruses.

So, when I heard that there was this coronavirus moving across the world I wasn’t as worried as perhaps other people were, because I figured that since there are four common cold-causing coronaviruses, I figured that quite a lot of the population we’ve been exposed to one of those viruses, and would probably have a perhaps substantial protective immunity. And just to explain why I was so confident everybody knows the story of Edward Jenner and vaccination, and the story of cowpox and smallpox. And that the old story was that milkmaids had very, uh, clear complexions: they never suffered from things like smallpox, that if it didn’t kill you would leave your skin permanently scarred. And the reason that they had the protection was that they were exposed to a more benign, related virus called cowpox.

Edward Jenner came up with the idea that if it’s cowpox that saves the fair maid – he reasoned that if he could give another person an exposure to the cowpox, he would be able to protect them from smallpox. Now, he did an experiment that you can’t do now – and he never should have done it – but apocryphally, or really, or maybe you’re ill, we’re not sure. Edward Jenner acquired some of the liquid from a person infected with cowpox. Relatively mild pustules that then go away. And he got some of this and he – he scraped it into the skin of a small boy and a few weeks later, he obtained some liquid from some poor person that was dying of smallpox and infected the boy. And, lo and behold, the boy did not get ill and that gave birth to the whole field of what’s called vaccination. And vax, the vaccine’s “vac.” It comes from “vaccus,” the Latin name for cow. So, we are really familiar with the principle of cross immunization.

I’ve thought quite a lot about, you know, the vulnerable people in in care homes and there’s an awareness that, even though people really careful using PPE and so on, but that’s only going to go so far in a kind of, hot house environment where people are pretty close together in a care home. So the question I’ve had all year is: once one or two people, you know, got the virus in a care home, why wouldn’t almost everyone get infected? And of course the truth is, they didn’t. And one interpretation of that distinction is that a large proportion of people in the care homes had prior immunity.

At this time of year, about 1 in 30 people have a cold, caused by one of these coronaviruses. And just like the protection against smallpox provided by previous exposure to cowpox, so people exposed to having had a cold caused by one of these coronaviruses they’re now immune to SARS-CoV-2. So, 30% of the population was protected before the start. SAGE said it was zero – and I don’t understand how they could possibly have justified that. There’s a second, and equally fatal, unaccountable error that they have made in their model. The percentage of the population that SAGE asserts have been infected to date by the virus is about seven percent. I know that that’s what they believe and you can see it in a document they published in September called “Non-pharmaceutical interventions” and it says sadly more than 90% of the population is still vulnerable.

It’s unbelievably wrong. And I’m just going to explain why: they’ve based their number on the percentage of people in the country who have antibodies in their blood. And only the people who became most ill needed to actually develop and release antibodies around their body. So, it is certainly true that the people who have lots of antibodies were infected. But a very large number of people had milder symptoms, and even more people had none at all. And the best estimates that we can arrive at is that those people either made no antibodies, or so low amounts that they will have faded from now.

A recent publication on the percentage of care home residents who have antibodies to the virus very, very interesting. This time they were using high sensitivity tests for antibodies and they carefully picked out residents that never were PCR-positive: these are people who never got infected. And they found that 65% of them had antibodies to the virus; they never got infected. So I believe there was high prevalence of immunity in that population prior to the virus arriving. Big story in the media, recently, was that the percentage of people with antibodies against the virus in their blood was falling. Now, this was cast as a concern that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t last very long. Well, you know, anyone with knowledge of immunity would – would just simply reject that. It’s not the way immunity to virus works – that would be T-cells. So, if the antibodies are falling gradually over time – which they have – from spring to present, the only plausible explanation is that the prevalence of the virus in the population is falling, and that’s why the antibody production gradually subsides.

Less than 40% of the population are susceptible. Even theoretical epidemiologists would tell you that that’s too small a number to support a consolidated and growing outbreak, community immunity, herd immunity. So, SAGE says that we’re not even close, and I’m telling you that the best science, by the best scientists in the world, published in the top peer-reviewed journals, says they’re wrong: that more than 60 of the population are now immune, and it’s simply not possible to have a large and growing pandemic.

Really good news, genuine good news, to hear that there’s data emerging from the vaccine clinical trials, and we are seeing vaccines that raise not just antibodies – but they’re also producing T-cell responses. This is great; back to proper science, proper immunology. That’s how immunity to viruses works. So, my surprise though, and it’s just annoying that when we’re talking about, uh, the percentage of the population that’s still susceptible we only talk about antibodies, like seven percent from SAGE. Why are we not talking about the 50% that have got T-cell immunity?

And so you might be thinking if Mike – and Dr Mike Yeadon is telling you these things… – or how come the pandemic isn’t over? Well, this may come as a surprise to you, but I believe fundamentally it is over. The country has experienced almost a complete cycle now of the virus sweeping through the land, and we are at the end of it. London was –was horribly affected in the spring, and somewhere in early April they were experiencing several hundred deaths per day from people dying with similar symptoms in respiratory failure and, uh, inflammation. And at the moment the number of people dying of SARS-CoV-2 in the capital is less than 10. So it’s down by 98, or something like that. And, the reason it’s down, is because there are now too few people in London susceptible to allow the virus to magnify, to amplify, to get an epidemic. And, and they would have been hit by now, because they were the first place hit in the spring. And I think what we’re seeing now in the Northeast and the Northwest would be the dying embers of the spreading out of this virus. And I’m very sorry that it is still true, that a small number of people are catching it, getting ill, and dying.

So why aren’t the media telling us that the pandemic is over? It’s not over because SAGE says it’s not. So SAGE consists of very many scientists, from a range of disciplines – mathematicians and clinicians – and there are multiple committees. But I found to my surprise – and I’m actually going to use the word – horror, that in the spring, all the way through the spring and summer, SAGE did not have on their committee someone who I would call a card-carrying immunologist; a clinical immunologist. I have to say I think that in the spring and summer SAGE was deficient in the expertise it had. They should have armed themselves, you know, with – around the table all the people required to to understand what was happening, and they didn’t do that. People asked me then, “Well Mike, if it’s, you know, if it’s fundamentally over, why are we still getting hundreds of deaths a day from SARS-CoV-2?” And I’ve thought a lot about this. There is a test that’s performed where people have their noses and tonsils swabbed, and then a test (called a PCR test) is performed on that. And what they’re looking for isn’t the virus – you might think it’s looking for the virus, but it’s not. What they’re looking for is a small piece of genetic sequence; it’s called RNA. Unfortunately, that bit of RNA will be found in people’s tonsils and nose not if they’ve just caught the virus, and they’re about to get ill, or they’re already ill. It’s also going to be found if they were infected previously weeks – or even, sometimes, a small number of months ago. Let me just explain why that is.

If you’ve been infected, and you’ve fought off the virus (which most people do), you’ll have broken, dead bits of virus. These are tiny things smaller than your cells, perhaps spread all the way through your airway, embedded in bits of mucus, maybe inside an airway lining cell. And so over a period of weeks or months you bring up cells that contain broken, dead pieces of the virus that you have conquered and killed. However, the PCR test is not able to detect whether the viral RNA has come from a living virus or a dead one (as I’ve just described). So I think a large proportion of the so-called positives are, in fact, what I call “cold” positives: they’re correctly identifying that there is some viral RNA in the sample – but it’s from a dead virus. It can’t hurt them, they’re not going to get ill, they can’t transmit it to anybody else. So they’re not infectious. So that accounts for a large number of the so-called positive cases. These are people who’ve beaten the virus. Why are we using this test that cannot distinguish between active infection and people who’ve conquered the virus?

This test has never been used in this way – and I’ve worked in this field. It’s not a suitable technique it’s a – it’s the kind of technique you would use for forensic purposes, if you were trying to do a DNA test to establish whether or not a person was at the scene of a crime. You would not be doing these tests by a windy, supermarket car parking; what looks like plastic marquee tents; on picnic tables. It’s not suitable at all – and it definitely shouldn’t be done in the way it’s been done. It’s subject to many mechanical errors, should we say, handling errors. If this was a test being used for legal purposes, for forensic purposes like a DNA identity test, the judge would throw out this evidence; would say it’s not admissible. It produces positives even when there’s no virus there at all. We call that a false positive.

As we’ve increased the number of tests done per day, so we’ve had to recruit less and less experienced laboratory staff – and now we’re using people who’ve never worked professionally in this area. What that does is it increases the frequency of mistakes, and the effect of this is that the false positive rate rises and rises. So, if you had a false positive rate of one percent – which Mr. Matt Hancock [British Secretary of State for Health and Social Care] told us was roughly the number they had in the summer – then if you tested a thousand people that had no virus ten of them would be positive, astonishingly. If the prevalence of the virus was only one in a thousand, that’s 0.1% – as the Office for National Statistics told us it was through the summer – then if you use the PCR test only one of them will be positive and genuinely so. But if the false positive rate is as low as one percent, you’ll also get 10 positives that are false.

Some people did say to me, “Well, there’ll be a higher percentage of people coming forward for testing in the community,” so-called “Pillar 2” testing, because they’ve been instructed only to come if they’ve got symptoms. But I call B.S. on that one. I don’t think that’s true. I know lots of friends and relatives who’ve been told by an employer, “Well, you’ve sat near someone who’s tested positive, and I don’t want you to come back to work until you’ve got a negative test.” I’ve seen information from many towns in the North – certainly Birmingham was one; Manchester was another; Bolton – where councils (and I really think they were trying to be helpful) were out leafleting the people of their cities saying, “We’re going to come round and swab you all because we want to track down this virus.” Now once you start testing people, more or less randomly, instead of [those] having symptoms you get the same amount of virus in the population as the Office of National Statistics found which is, at the time was, one in a thousand. And I’ve just told you Matt Hancock confirmed during the summer they had a false positive rate of about one percent. So that means out of a thousand people 10 would test positive, and it would be a false result, and only one would test positive and it was correct.

This test is monstrously unsuitable for detecting who has live virus in their airway. It’s subject to multiple distortions that are worsening as we get into the winter. As the number of tests done per day increase[s], the number of errors made by these overworked, not very experienced lab staff increase[s]. I think it’s not unreasonable to say a best guess of the false positive rate at the moment – what’s called the operational false positive rate is about five percent. Five percent of 300,000 is 15,000 positives. I think some of those positives are real; I don’t think it’s very many. Now, the problem with this false positive issue [is] it doesn’t just stop it at “cases”: it extends to people who are unwell and go to hospital. So people who go to hospital having tested positive – and it could be a false positive, and I think most of them are at the moment – if you go to hospital and you’ve tested positive previously, or you test positive in hospital, you’ll be counted now as a Covid admission.

Although there are more people in hospital now than a month ago, this is normal for autumn. Regrettably, people catch respiratory viruses and become ill, and some will die. I just don’t believe it’s got anything to do with Covid-19 anymore. There are more people in intensive care beds now than there were a month or so ago. That’s entirely normal as we move through late autumn into the early winter: those beds become used. But there aren’t more people than is normal for the time of year, and we’re not about to run out of capacity, certainly at a national level. But I think you know it is going now: if you should now die, you’ll be counted as a Covid death. But that’s not correct; these are people who might have – have gone to hospital having had a broken leg, for example, but they’ll – three percent of them will still test positive, and they’re not, they haven’t got the virus. It’s a – it’s a false positive, and if they die they’ll be called a Covid death – and they are not. They’ve died of something else.

One of the most troubling things I’ve heard this year was Mr. Johnson telling us about the “Moonshot” testing everybody often, maybe every day, is the way out of this problem. I’m telling you it’s the way to keep us in this problem: that number of tests is orders of magnitude higher than we’re already testing now, and the false positive rate (however low it is) will be far too large to accept. It will produce an enormous number of false positives.

What we should do is stop mass testing. Not only is it an affront to your liberty, it will not help at all: it will be immensely expensive and it will be a pathology all of its own. We’ll be fighting off stupid people – mostly government ministers – I’m sorry to say, who are not numerate, and do not understand statistics. If you test a million people a day with a test that produces one percent false positives, 10 000 people a day will wrongly be told they’ve got the virus. If the prevalence of the virus was say 0.1%, like the Office of National Statistics said it was in summer, then only a tenth of that number, uh, 1,000 would correctly be identified. But you can’t distinguish amongst the 11,000 who have genuinely got the virus and who are false positives. Moonshot, I think, will have a worse false positive rate. It’s not fixable, and it’s not necessary either. The pandemic – having passed through the population not only of, of the UK, but of all of Europe – and probably all of the world quite soon – it won’t return. Why won’t it return? Well, they’ve got T-cell immunity. We know this. It’s been studied by the best cellular immunologists in the world.

Sometimes people will say, “Well, it looks like the immunity is starting to fade.” You’ll sometimes see [statements] like that, and when I saw the first headline like this I remember being really quite confused, because that’s not the way immunology works. Just think about it for a moment. If that was how it worked it could kill you. When you had to fight it off, and if you had successfully done that, it somehow didn’t leave a mark in your body. Well, it does leave a mark on your body. The way you fought it off involved certain pattern recognition receptors, and has left you with – as it were – memory cells that remember what it was they fought off. And if they see that thing again it’s very easy for them to get those cells to work again in minutes or hours, and they will protect you. So the most likely explanation is it’ll last a long time.

So I read a bit more about this so-called tailing off of immunity – and I realized they were talking about antibodies. Just incorrect to – to think that antibodies, and how long they stay up, is a measure of immune protection against viruses. I mean you can tell I’m – I don’t agree with this. It says there have been some classic experiments done on people who have inborn errors in parts of their immune system, and some of them have inborn arrows that means they can’t make antibodies, and guess what: they – they are able to handle respiratory viruses the same as you and me. So, I don’t think it’s harmful to have antibodies, although some people are worried about the potential for amplifying inflammation from antibodies, but – but my view is that they’re – they’re probably neutral, and you definitely should not believe the story that because the antibody falls away you’ve lost immunity. Again, that’s just not the way the human immune system works.

The most likely duration of immunity to a respiratory virus like SARS-CoV-2 is multiple years. Why do I say that? We actually have the data for a virus that swept through parts of the world 17 years ago called SARS, and remember SARS-CoV-2 is 80% similar to SARS, so I think that’s the best comparison that anyone can provide. The evidence is clear. These very clever cellular immunologists studied all the people they could get hold of who had survived SARS 17 years ago. They took a blood sample, and they tested whether they responded or not to the original SARS, and they all did. They all have perfectly normal, robust T-cell memory. They are actually also protected against SARS-CoV-2 because it’s so similar, it’s cross-immunity. So, I would say the best data that exists is that immunity should be robust for at least 17 years. I think it’s entirely possible that it is lifelong. The style of the responses of these people’s T-cells were the same as if you’ve been vaccinated and then you come back years later to see, has that immunity been retained? And so I think the evidence is really strong that the duration of immunity will be multiple years, and possibly lifelong.

There have been but a tiny handful of people who appear to have been infected twice – now they’re very interesting, we need to know who they are and understand them very well, they’ve probably got certain rare immune deficiency syndromes. So I’m not pretending no one ever gets reinfected, but I am pointing out that it’s literally five people (or maybe 50 people), but the World Health Organization estimated some weeks ago that 750 million people have been infected so far by SARS-CoV-2. That means most people are not being reinfected, and I can tell you why that is: it’s normal. It’s what happens with viruses, respiratory viruses. Some people have – have called for “zero Covid” as if it’s some political slogan. And there are some people I’ve heard calling for it almost every day; they’re completely unqualified to tell you anything.

Something that’s really important to know is that SARS-CoV-2 – it’s an unpleasant virus. There’s no question about it, but it’s not what you were told in spring. We were originally told that it would kill perhaps three percent of people it infected – which is horrifying. That’s 30 times worse than flu. We always overestimate the lethality of new infectious diseases when we’re in the eye of the storm. I believe the true infection fatality ratio of Covid-19, the true threat to life is, the same as seasonal flu.

So there’s no reason why you would want to try and drive Covid to zero. It’s a nonsense – that’s just not how biology is. And all the means I have heard, uh, proposed, as ways to get us there are much more damaging and pathological, I would say, than than the virus itself. It’s simply not possible to get rid of every single copy of the Covid-19 virus, and the means to get you there would destroy society. Forget the cost – although it would be huge – it would destroy your liberty, you would need to not go out until you’ve been tested and have your result back. And I have described how the false positive rate would just destroy it from a statistical perspective. I don’t believe it can be done: it’s not scientifically realistic, it’s not medically realistic, and it’s not what we have ever done.

As the virus swept towards the UK in the – in the late winter and early spring I too was concerned, because at the time we were told perhaps three percent might die. So when the Prime Minister called for a lockdown I wasn’t pleased about it, but I understood that we should try this. But it’s important that you understand, that when we look at the profile of the pandemic as it passed through the population, that it was clear that the number of infections every day was falling. We’d passed the peak quite a long time before lockdown started. So we took all that pain, that locked down pain which was multiple weeks – I don’t remember exactly how many multiple weeks – we took it for nothing. If there was a really important effect of lockdown on the number of people who died, or the rate of it, you should at least be able to order them. Like, these people had locked down, and these didn’t – and you cannot. All heavily infected countries’ shapes are the same, whether they had locked down or not. They don’t work. I don’t know why anyone is allowing you, know you, to be pushed into this corner.

I don’t think we entirely know why it is that some countries were hit harder than others, but I have to say I think scientifically the smart money is on a mixture of forces. One would be this cross immunity. Although China had an awful time in Wuhan, in Hubei province, it didn’t spread elsewhere in the country, and I suspect that meant because a lot of them had this cross immunity. And I think nearby countries, in the main, had lots of cross immunity. So that’s one possibility. The other one, though, is in terms of the severity of what did the virus do to a particular population. We’ve seen devastating effects in countries like UK and in Belgium, uh, France, and maybe even in Sweden, and much smaller numbers of deaths in other countries like – like Greece and in Germany. And you might think, “Well, was that was it something that they did?” And I wish it was true, because if it was something we did we could learn from it and do it and it would work in the future. But there’s no evidence whatsoever that it was anything humans did. The passage of this virus through the human population is an entirely natural process that completely ignored our puny efforts to control it.

So there is this theory – I don’t like the name very much – but it’s called “dry tinder.” If people in a country who are vulnerable for to dying in the winter (usually of respiratory viruses), if you have a very mild winter season, like UK did – we had a very mild seasonal flu last year and the year before and so did Sweden – then what happens is there are larger number of very vulnerable people who are even older than usual, and – and I think that’s why we suffered a rather large number of deaths. It was still only 0.06% of the population, equivalent to about four weeks of normal mortality. But countries that had very severe winters recently, and Greece and Germany certainly had very lethal winter flus in the last two years. I think then, they had a smaller population of very vulnerable people, and that is the main reason why they lost fewer people. It’s not to do with locking down, it’s not to do with testing, or tracking, or tracing. I personally don’t think any of those measures have made any difference at all. So Belgium and UK and Sweden were particularly vulnerable, whereas adjacent Nordic countries – I – I get fed up with hearing about this, uh, idea that they locked down and that’s why it saved them and afraid the other Nordic countries had normal flu epidemics the last two or three years. Sweden, like UK, had very mild epidemics: you can just go and look at the number of deaths, it’s sub-normal for UK and Sweden. And now we’ve got a supra-normal, a larger-than-normal, number of deaths from Covid.

Now there may be other reasons, I’m not saying there are not but I think those two main forces – the amount of prior immunity and the so-called “dry tinder,” what vulnerable fraction of the population did you have as a result of seasonal flu being intense or not – I think that accounts for most of it. And it’s – it’s just puberistic and, uh, and – and kind of silly that our government and advisors tell you that doing things that have never worked in the past, like lockdown are going to make any difference to the transfer of respiratory viruses. I don’t believe it for a moment. There’s no scientific evidence behind it and there are much stronger scientific hypotheses that do explain it. You might think that in terms of numbers of deaths – excess deaths – that Covid has produced such a large number that this will be an awful year for excess deaths, but surprisingly not. 2020 is lining up to be about eighth in a list since 1993.

Roughly 620,000 people die every year in this country. They say in life we are also in death – and it’s true, it’s been awful for those who have been personally affected by illness and death, but it’s not particularly unusual in terms of the number of people who’ve died. So one of the things I’ve noticed has happened in – in recent years is that we almost seem to be moving, uh, you know post-science, post-fact as if – as if facts don’t matter. For someone who’s qualified and practiced as a professional scientist for 35 years I think it’s deeply distressing that, I don’t think you should listen to me if I talked about – I don’t know, the design of motorways or something – like, I don’t know anything about motorways or – or how to grow trees better, I don’t know anything about that. But I do know quite a lot about immunology, infection, inflammation, and the way infectious organisms move through a population.

I’ve no other reason for giving this interview other than I really care what happens to my country – and we have to pull ourselves out of this. And I personally believe the way forward is twofold, it’s not difficult. One, we should cease mass testing of the mostly-well in the community immediately – it only provides misleading and grey information, and yet we’re driving policy almost completely based on it. It’s definitely wrong, we should not do it. Use the tests in hospital – I’m not saying don’t test – don’t continue mass testing, and for God’s sake, don’t increase the number of tests. It is a pathology all of its own which must be stamped out by right thinking people. And I’m afraid the people on SAGE, who have provided the modeling, the predictions, the – the measures that should be taken, that their work is so badly, and obviously flawed – lethally incompetent, that you should have no more to do with these people. They should be fired immediately. And the effect of that advice has been to – have cost lots of innocent people their lives from non-Covid causes, they should be dismissed and reconstituted using an appropriate group of skilled individuals – especially avoiding any who might even have the suggestion of a conflict of interest. I think we’re right at the edge of the precipice. I really hope that we can pull back.

1 note · View note