The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
kingstongraham said:
It's disgraceful, but... the best possible explanation for the lateral flow positives that weren't confirmed.briantrumpet said:
Indeed. At least it has a simple solution, rather than being a worrying mystery.0 -
Agree it was best cause but ridiculous that it took so long to work that out.0
-
Just had a text from test & trace to say the result of the PCR test I took on 28th September may have had an issue with the result. I was pretty sure it was just a cold the day after I took the test as I started getting more traditional cold symptoms and I have done a pre-flight LFT and 2 day PCR since with negative results but I still have a cough nearly 3 weeks later so who knows.0
-
-
Fascinating covid map at the moment. It's going nuts pretty much everywhere (it's really spreading like wildfire through schools, and then to their families), except London's looking nothing like the rest of the country at the moment. Weird.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/interactive-map/cases
I'm jolly glad my school has a two-week half term now.0 -
I’ve been looking at it daily for the past 2-3 weeks. The dark purple wave (ie higher rates of infection per 100k of population) has been slowly but steadily descending downwards from Scotland through the North East and West, then Midlands. London is coming.briantrumpet said:Fascinating covid map at the moment. It's going nuts pretty much everywhere (it's really spreading like wildfire through schools, and then to their families), except London's looking nothing like the rest of the country at the moment. Weird.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/interactive-map/cases
I'm jolly glad my school has a two-week half term now.0 -
It does look like a very big gamble at this point, as hospitalisations and deaths move upwards.
And whilst in Devon it's raced past 400/100k, it's less than 10/100k for great chunks of my bit of (masked and pass sanitaire) France...
0 -
Rates are going to be high for a while as life has to go on. I was at an engineering meeting and rig hall visit last week and one of the guys tested positive a couple of days later but most likely got this from his personal life prior. The point really is everyone there was vaccinated and we moved the job forward much better than teams. Schools are now a do what you like environment particularly in primary schools so it was always going to go mental. When we are looking at tens of deaths a day is this mainly the vulnerable and unvaccinated?0
-
The theory seems to be, because we vaccinated quickest, using AZ, that we've reached the point AZ starts to wane soonest and that, combined with having the slackest restrictions, means we see an increase in hospitalizations & deaths.
The remedy is cracking on with boosters (before we have to reimpose restrictions)“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
That's a very detailed map. Which in turn can be misleading.briantrumpet said:
And whilst in Devon it's raced past 400/100k, it's less than 10/100k for great chunks of my bit of (masked and pass sanitaire) France...
There is dark blue shading, indicating an incidence rate of at least 1000 per 100,000 (i.e. at least 1 in 100), for a region about halfway between Gap and Briancon. So a rate which doesn't sound at all good.
However there is very little there – it is the region around Orcieres, with probably just a population of about 600. So the dark blue shading might only mean 7 people there have Covid, in an area of 100 sq kms. Not so bad afterall.0 -
jimmyjams said:
That's a very detailed map. Which in turn can be misleading.briantrumpet said:
And whilst in Devon it's raced past 400/100k, it's less than 10/100k for great chunks of my bit of (masked and pass sanitaire) France...
There is dark blue shading, indicating an incidence rate of at least 1000 per 100,000 (i.e. at least 1 in 100), for a region about halfway between Gap and Briancon. So a rate which doesn't sound at all good.
However there is very little there – it is the region around Orcieres, with probably just a population of about 600. So the dark blue shading might only mean 7 people there have Covid, in an area of 100 sq kms. Not so bad afterall.
Yes, indeed. Some fairly large communes have tiny populations.0 -
Had my booster and flu jabs on Friday - was like the scene in Ace Ventura when he ends up with a spear in each thigh.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
I read through the article and it doesn't seem to cover the "here's why". Lots of words, many of them repetitive but all it really mentions is that fewer under 17s have been vaccinated and that the UK was quicker to relax its restrictions then elsewhere in Europe (which I'm not sure is completely true). Pretty poor article really.rick_chasey said:0 -
That doesn't provide any reasons why, its just clickbait and some ramblings of a Pfizer exec...rick_chasey said:1 -
If it's not that, then what is it?Pross said:
I read through the article and it doesn't seem to cover the "here's why". Lots of words, many of them repetitive but all it really mentions is that fewer under 17s have been vaccinated and that the UK was quicker to relax its restrictions then elsewhere in Europe (which I'm not sure is completely true). Pretty poor article really.rick_chasey said:0 -
There's a John Burn-Murdoch thread on Twitter that covers it in some detail. In summary: way more relaxation of restrictions than rest of Europe + early to vaccinate means early waning of vaccine efficacy. In short, we should get those boosters and U18 jabs done yesterday and maybe dial back on the mass events with no mitigation.Pross said:
I read through the article and it doesn't seem to cover the "here's why". Lots of words, many of them repetitive but all it really mentions is that fewer under 17s have been vaccinated and that the UK was quicker to relax its restrictions then elsewhere in Europe (which I'm not sure is completely true). Pretty poor article really.rick_chasey said:1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Pross said:
I read through the article and it doesn't seem to cover the "here's why". Lots of words, many of them repetitive but all it really mentions is that fewer under 17s have been vaccinated and that the UK was quicker to relax its restrictions then elsewhere in Europe (which I'm not sure is completely true). Pretty poor article really.rick_chasey said:
I'm still not entirely sure whether the spread among schoolchildren is itself a deliberate 'health policy/gamble', a kowtowing to the 'pro-freedom' Tory loons, or just th result of a dysfunctional government. It wouldn't have been unreasonable to keep mask mandates until a decent proportion of 12-15yo's had been vaccinated, even if the government didn't have the guts to impose a vaccine passport.
But overall, it feels like pragmatism has given way to ideology.1 -
It probably is that but that's hardly investigative journalism at its finest is it? More a case of stating the obvious but my point was more it doesn't even try to claim that is the reason, just mentions it almost as an aside. I'd be interested to see rates of testing as it feels like we've gone from being really poor at testing when it would have been beneficial (if linked to tracing) to now almost an overkill of testing. There's a chance that there's an element of not finding if you don't look with asymptomatic testings, a bit like when it comes to doping in cycling or athletics v football or tennis.rick_chasey said:
If it's not that, then what is it?Pross said:
I read through the article and it doesn't seem to cover the "here's why". Lots of words, many of them repetitive but all it really mentions is that fewer under 17s have been vaccinated and that the UK was quicker to relax its restrictions then elsewhere in Europe (which I'm not sure is completely true). Pretty poor article really.rick_chasey said:0 -
Or D : all of the above.briantrumpet said:Pross said:
I read through the article and it doesn't seem to cover the "here's why". Lots of words, many of them repetitive but all it really mentions is that fewer under 17s have been vaccinated and that the UK was quicker to relax its restrictions then elsewhere in Europe (which I'm not sure is completely true). Pretty poor article really.rick_chasey said:
I'm still not entirely sure whether the spread among schoolchildren is itself a deliberate 'health policy/gamble', a kowtowing to the 'pro-freedom' Tory loons, or just th result of a dysfunctional government. It wouldn't have been unreasonable to keep mask mandates until a decent proportion of 12-15yo's had been vaccinated, even if the government didn't have the guts to impose a vaccine passport.
But overall, it feels like pragmatism has given way to ideology.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Makes far more sense than the rubbish in that Bloomberg article - clickbait as DHL said.rjsterry said:
There's a John Burn-Murdoch thread on Twitter that covers it in some detail. In summary: way more relaxation of restrictions than rest of Europe + early to vaccinate means early waning of vaccine efficacy. In short, we should get those boosters and U18 jabs done yesterday and maybe dial back on the mass events with no mitigation.Pross said:
I read through the article and it doesn't seem to cover the "here's why". Lots of words, many of them repetitive but all it really mentions is that fewer under 17s have been vaccinated and that the UK was quicker to relax its restrictions then elsewhere in Europe (which I'm not sure is completely true). Pretty poor article really.rick_chasey said:
0 -
Yep, BJ telling everyone to wear a mask while no-longer mandating and never wearing one is not helpful. Still, its only infecting the 10-15s in any great numbers and they don't appear to get that ill from it.briantrumpet said:Pross said:
I read through the article and it doesn't seem to cover the "here's why". Lots of words, many of them repetitive but all it really mentions is that fewer under 17s have been vaccinated and that the UK was quicker to relax its restrictions then elsewhere in Europe (which I'm not sure is completely true). Pretty poor article really.rick_chasey said:
I'm still not entirely sure whether the spread among schoolchildren is itself a deliberate 'health policy/gamble', a kowtowing to the 'pro-freedom' Tory loons, or just th result of a dysfunctional government. It wouldn't have been unreasonable to keep mask mandates until a decent proportion of 12-15yo's had been vaccinated, even if the government didn't have the guts to impose a vaccine passport.
But overall, it feels like pragmatism has given way to ideology.
I mean, What's 1k hospitalisations a day and 7k hospital beds compared to asking kids to wear masks for a few weeks until they get stabbed with a gates serum?0 -
Pross said:
It probably is that but that's hardly investigative journalism at its finest is it? More a case of stating the obvious but my point was more it doesn't even try to claim that is the reason, just mentions it almost as an aside. I'd be interested to see rates of testing as it feels like we've gone from being really poor at testing when it would have been beneficial (if linked to tracing) to now almost an overkill of testing. There's a chance that there's an element of not finding if you don't look with asymptomatic testings, a bit like when it comes to doping in cycling or athletics v football or tennis.rick_chasey said:
If it's not that, then what is it?Pross said:
I read through the article and it doesn't seem to cover the "here's why". Lots of words, many of them repetitive but all it really mentions is that fewer under 17s have been vaccinated and that the UK was quicker to relax its restrictions then elsewhere in Europe (which I'm not sure is completely true). Pretty poor article really.rick_chasey said:
From the coalface: a shedload of LFTs being done in schools at the moment, followed up by PCRs for positives. Having been fairly sceptical about the LFTs early on, I think they are proving their worth now: they are picking up loads on asymptomatic infections.0 -
Also, an interesting article here about LFTs & PCRTs
https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/oct/17/whats-the-value-of-a-confirmatory-pcr-test-covidImagine a (rather strange) legal case with the prosecution alleging that you harbour the virus. In court, it is becoming common to quote a “likelihood ratio” provided by forensic evidence — the relative support for the prosecution versus the defence.
First, the positive LFD is presented by the prosecution. If the virus were present, a recent study estimates around an 80% chance of a positive LFD – higher if you were infectious. Alternatively, if the defence is correct, there is a less than one in 1,000 chance of a false positive LFD. The likelihood ratio is therefore at least 800 (0.8/0.001). As a comparison, the curvature of the spine found on the skeleton in a Leicester car park contributed an estimated likelihood ratio of 200 in favour of the remains being those of Richard III.
The defence retorts with the negative PCR test. If you were infected, the PCR test might miss it around one in 20 times. If there were no virus, then that test is almost certain to be negative. Here, the likelihood ratio is around one in 20.
Combining these two conflicting pieces of evidence gives an overall likelihood ratio of about 40 (800 divided by 20). In a court, that might be reported as “moderate evidence” in favour of you having an infection.
As viral prevalence changes, then the probability of infection following conflicting test results also changes. At the current infection rate in England of one in 60 people, and with labs working well, out of 100 people with a positive LFD followed by a negative PCR, around 40 would actually have the virus and be falsely reassured.
The negative PCR does not outweigh the positive LFD.0 -
Ah, one rule for us, one rule for them...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/18/nimco-ali-christmas-stay-boris-carrie-johnson-covid-lockdown0 -
To the surprise of absolutely f***ing no-one.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Key question was not asked.briantrumpet said:Ah, one rule for us, one rule for them...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/18/nimco-ali-christmas-stay-boris-carrie-johnson-covid-lockdown
Where were BJ & Carrie going during lockdown that they needed childcare?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I thought he changed the rules so that people with young babies had a lot moe freedombriantrumpet said:Ah, one rule for us, one rule for them...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/18/nimco-ali-christmas-stay-boris-carrie-johnson-covid-lockdown0 -
surrey_commuter said:
I thought he changed the rules so that people with young babies had a lot moe freedombriantrumpet said:Ah, one rule for us, one rule for them...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/18/nimco-ali-christmas-stay-boris-carrie-johnson-covid-lockdown
But I thought he already had the freedom to have affairs when he had young babies...0 -
Given this gathering seems to have involved one person does anyone actually give a shit. Half the posters on this forum will have done a lot worse. It hardly a rave.briantrumpet said:Ah, one rule for us, one rule for them...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/18/nimco-ali-christmas-stay-boris-carrie-johnson-covid-lockdown0
