The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
I was talking to someone who had theirs earlier today. He was queuing from probably just under the half way point of tonight's queue so they were going to be at 1.5 hours. Had dropped to about the 45 minute point by time I got back from my run so they got past the peak. I'm having mine at the other local centre so hoping the queue is shorter.Jezyboy said:
Surely vulnerable people all got the third jab a while back!Pross said:Just turned up at the leisure centre where we meet for running club that is also a local vaccination centre. The queue is all around the car park, must be a good 200-300m before even getting into the building. A good sign I suppose but it is currently 2 degrees out there so may lose a few vulnerable people before they make it inside!
Hopefully it's moving quickly.0 -
What everybody forgets about the infinite number of monkeys is that the others don’t write the complete works of Shakespeare. 😀TheBigBean said:
This is a point @surrey_commuter has made since the start of the pandemic. On the basis that I nearly always disagree with him about everything, it is only fair to point out that I think he is right on this one.kingstongraham said:
I think behaviour change has been quite dramatic to avoid getting it before Christmas.rick_chasey said:Well with that and the SA stuff we may be in a position where this is the peak....which seems very counter intuitive.
0 -
Hospitality and travel people whinging like fark about the lack of financial support the Government is giving them gets on my nerves. It feels like they've previously pushed the Government to allow them to reopen too early with their whinging. There was some woman from a travel company on the news going on about waiting for the money the Government "owes" them when it is effectively a bail out.1
-
Am in two minds. There's absolutely no doubt that this pandemic has crippled very specific parts of the economy, and barely touched others. I'm in the latter part of the economy, as is my other half, but that's just luck.Pross said:Hospitality and travel people whinging like fark about the lack of financial support the Government is giving them gets on my nerves. It feels like they've previously pushed the Government to allow them to reopen too early with their whinging. There was some woman from a travel company on the news going on about waiting for the money the Government "owes" them when it is effectively a bail out.
A bit of targeted help now seems better to me than furlough did last year.
0 -
Sure got no problem with there being support and I think for all their faults the Government have done a decent job of it. It's more that elements of the sectors seem to have come to expect it and moan about it not being enough.First.Aspect said:
Am in two minds. There's absolutely no doubt that this pandemic has crippled very specific parts of the economy, and barely touched others. I'm in the latter part of the economy, as is my other half, but that's just luck.Pross said:Hospitality and travel people whinging like fark about the lack of financial support the Government is giving them gets on my nerves. It feels like they've previously pushed the Government to allow them to reopen too early with their whinging. There was some woman from a travel company on the news going on about waiting for the money the Government "owes" them when it is effectively a bail out.
A bit of targeted help now seems better to me than furlough did last year.
Probably just me being tainted by working in a sector that gets hammered by recessions with no financial support and where companies are left to fail if they don't have the financial reserves to get through.0 -
Ball locks. 2 cases of Covid (on LFTs) in my house today. I've tested negative but can only be a matter of time seeing as one is the wife so I was sleeping in the same room all night.
My son is the other - he only took a test because he was talking to me and his voice was hoarse - he isn't happy that he can't have his Xmas nights out now.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
This.Pross said:
Probably just me being tainted by working in a sector that gets hammered by recessions with no financial support and where companies are left to fail if they don't have the financial reserves to get through.
They have my sympathy and understanding having been there but I will be reciprocating the support I received.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 -
It's ignored by the modelling, I think. If there is no policy/advice changed, it's assumed people will blindly carry on the same. Which always ends up overstating the average number of contacts when numbers start rising and people decide they'd rather not catch it if possible, thanks.TheBigBean said:
This is a point @surrey_commuter has made since the start of the pandemic. On the basis that I nearly always disagree with him about everything, it is only fair to point out that I think he is right on this one.kingstongraham said:
I think behaviour change has been quite dramatic to avoid getting it before Christmas.rick_chasey said:Well with that and the SA stuff we may be in a position where this is the peak....which seems very counter intuitive.
0 -
So the isolation timeline has been reduced from 10 to 7 days provided the person tests negative with a LFT. Makes sense to me if they’ve recovered and are deemed to no longer be infectious.0
-
The latest advice to reduce the isolation period to 7 days if there are two negative LFTs seems flawed. Apparently, you shouldn’t take a test until 90 days after infection because the residual virus means that it’s going to be positive. So is this latest advice more smoke and mirrors, given safe in the knowledge that hardly anyone will get a negative test result, but that’ll give some hope to those isolating?0
-
It's a balance between shutting off a material proportion of the population because they're self isolating and reducing R rate, so this is a sort of compromise.johngti said:The latest advice to reduce the isolation period to 7 days if there are two negative LFTs seems flawed. Apparently, you shouldn’t take a test until 90 days after infection because the residual virus means that it’s going to be positive. So is this latest advice more smoke and mirrors, given safe in the knowledge that hardly anyone will get a negative test result, but that’ll give some hope to those isolating?
0 -
I misread0
-
Are lfts different to pcr in that respect?johngti said:The latest advice to reduce the isolation period to 7 days if there are two negative LFTs seems flawed. Apparently, you shouldn’t take a test until 90 days after infection because the residual virus means that it’s going to be positive. So is this latest advice more smoke and mirrors, given safe in the knowledge that hardly anyone will get a negative test result, but that’ll give some hope to those isolating?
0 -
(Also, you've forgotten about all those false positives)0
-
Javid has just given a load of people currently isolating a way to allow them to enjoy Xmas after all by faking two negative LFTs.kingstonian said:So the isolation timeline has been reduced from 10 to 7 days provided the person tests negative with a LFT. Makes sense to me if they’ve recovered and are deemed to no longer be infectious.
God help us all in England!================
2020 Voodoo Marasa
2017 Cube Attain GTC Pro Disc 2016
2016 Voodoo Wazoo0 -
Apparently LFTs aren't so bad as they are less sensitive (conversely that is why you are not supposed to use them if you have symptoms).johngti said:The latest advice to reduce the isolation period to 7 days if there are two negative LFTs seems flawed. Apparently, you shouldn’t take a test until 90 days after infection because the residual virus means that it’s going to be positive. So is this latest advice more smoke and mirrors, given safe in the knowledge that hardly anyone will get a negative test result, but that’ll give some hope to those isolating?
0 -
If that was your aim, why would you have tested positive in the first place?N0bodyOfTheGoat said:
Javid has just given a load of people currently isolating a way to allow them to enjoy Xmas after all by faking two negative LFTs.kingstonian said:So the isolation timeline has been reduced from 10 to 7 days provided the person tests negative with a LFT. Makes sense to me if they’ve recovered and are deemed to no longer be infectious.
God help us all in England!0 -
Exactly. If you were that bothered you just wouldn't test in the first place.kingstongraham said:
If that was your aim, why would you have tested positive in the first place?N0bodyOfTheGoat said:
Javid has just given a load of people currently isolating a way to allow them to enjoy Xmas after all by faking two negative LFTs.kingstonian said:So the isolation timeline has been reduced from 10 to 7 days provided the person tests negative with a LFT. Makes sense to me if they’ve recovered and are deemed to no longer be infectious.
God help us all in England!
This seems like a sensible policy to me.0 -
This is the catch, for those doing it properly.johngti said:The latest advice to reduce the isolation period to 7 days if there are two negative LFTs seems flawed. Apparently, you shouldn’t take a test until 90 days after infection because the residual virus means that it’s going to be positive. So is this latest advice more smoke and mirrors, given safe in the knowledge that hardly anyone will get a negative test result, but that’ll give some hope to those isolating?
Our son has Covid. He "recovered" at the weekend but has to get a negative PCR to fly back to work. Tests daily and always positive. Extended holiday for him. 😃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 got a positive LFT & PCR earlier in the year.
After isolating for 10 days I got a negative LFT before returning to work and then negative tests every week since.johngti said:The latest advice to reduce the isolation period to 7 days if there are two negative LFTs seems flawed. Apparently, you shouldn’t take a test until 90 days after infection because the residual virus means that it’s going to be positive. So is this latest advice more smoke and mirrors, given safe in the knowledge that hardly anyone will get a negative test result, but that’ll give some hope to those isolating?
0 -
A lot of people I know have tested negative on LFT's even after a positive PCR. I read it's to do with the viral load being shed. It's not an ideal situation for all but that's always the case.1
-
So, for 90 days post infection, you test negative, that's good. You test positive and don't have symptoms, you assume the test is unreliable but you can't double check because you should not have a PCR within the 90 day period.0
-
I don't think that is true as when they were modelling the decline of delta, a fundamental part was how quickly the public would resume normal behaviour. At the time, there were very few restrictions.kingstongraham said:
It's ignored by the modelling, I think. If there is no policy/advice changed, it's assumed people will blindly carry on the same. Which always ends up overstating the average number of contacts when numbers start rising and people decide they'd rather not catch it if possible, thanks.TheBigBean said:
This is a point @surrey_commuter has made since the start of the pandemic. On the basis that I nearly always disagree with him about everything, it is only fair to point out that I think he is right on this one.kingstongraham said:
I think behaviour change has been quite dramatic to avoid getting it before Christmas.rick_chasey said:Well with that and the SA stuff we may be in a position where this is the peak....which seems very counter intuitive.
So, I suspect it represents some sort of input to models, but that it is, at best, an educated guess.0 -
Possibly. My source (the only one I could find):longy said:So, for 90 days post infection, you test negative, that's good. You test positive and don't have symptoms, you assume the test is unreliable but you can't double check because you should not have a PCR within the 90 day period.
https://www.devon.gov.uk/news/covid-19-testing-confusion/?amp=10 -
skyblueamateur said:
A lot of people I know have tested negative on LFT's even after a positive PCR. I read it's to do with the viral load being shed. It's not an ideal situation for all but that's always the case.
For all the negative stuff about LFTs, even if they miss a proportion, they certainly do seem to have alerted a lot of people I know to their infection, to be followed up by PCR. Given how close current symptoms are to cold symptoms, they seem to have been really helpful in that respect. I suspect they will be a long term part of the armoury, even if the twice-a-week routine isn't the norm forever.1 -
Fair dos.TheBigBean said:
I don't think that is true as when they were modelling the decline of delta, a fundamental part was how quickly the public would resume normal behaviour. At the time, there were very few restrictions.kingstongraham said:
It's ignored by the modelling, I think. If there is no policy/advice changed, it's assumed people will blindly carry on the same. Which always ends up overstating the average number of contacts when numbers start rising and people decide they'd rather not catch it if possible, thanks.TheBigBean said:
This is a point @surrey_commuter has made since the start of the pandemic. On the basis that I nearly always disagree with him about everything, it is only fair to point out that I think he is right on this one.kingstongraham said:
I think behaviour change has been quite dramatic to avoid getting it before Christmas.rick_chasey said:Well with that and the SA stuff we may be in a position where this is the peak....which seems very counter intuitive.
So, I suspect it represents some sort of input to models, but that it is, at best, an educated guess.
The Fraser Nelson/Graham Medley twitter thing is interesting. I don't think Medley covered himself in glory with his explanation over twitter.
He said they don't model "nothing's different", but that wasn't the question Nelson was asking. Ends up looking like they are only trying to model bad outcomes.
This is half way through the exchange.
0 -
4 days later ....positive LFTtailwindhome said:
Miraculously negative.tailwindhome said:3 positives in my daughter's circle of friends at uni.
So far she's negative, but due another pcr in the morning
Collected this morning in 'The last SUV out of Queens'“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Fraser Nelson is being deliberately stupid. Let me paraphrase the logic in a more relatable example, Fraser Nelson trying to get a loankingstongraham said:
Fair dos.TheBigBean said:
I don't think that is true as when they were modelling the decline of delta, a fundamental part was how quickly the public would resume normal behaviour. At the time, there were very few restrictions.kingstongraham said:
It's ignored by the modelling, I think. If there is no policy/advice changed, it's assumed people will blindly carry on the same. Which always ends up overstating the average number of contacts when numbers start rising and people decide they'd rather not catch it if possible, thanks.TheBigBean said:
This is a point @surrey_commuter has made since the start of the pandemic. On the basis that I nearly always disagree with him about everything, it is only fair to point out that I think he is right on this one.kingstongraham said:
I think behaviour change has been quite dramatic to avoid getting it before Christmas.rick_chasey said:Well with that and the SA stuff we may be in a position where this is the peak....which seems very counter intuitive.
So, I suspect it represents some sort of input to models, but that it is, at best, an educated guess.
The Fraser Nelson/Graham Medley twitter thing is interesting. I don't think Medley covered himself in glory with his explanation over twitter.
He said they don't model "nothing's different", but that wasn't the question Nelson was asking. Ends up looking like they are only trying to model bad outcomes.
This is half way through the exchange.
FN: I want a £50m mortgage
GM: We only lend up to 3x Salary
FN: People predict I am due a big pay rise, why are you choosing to ignore them?
GM: The underwriter doesn't use predictions, it uses a model
FN: YOU SHALL NOT HEAR THE LAST OF THI..0 -
I’ve seen a bit of noise that yesterday’s numbers might not be as good as thought. I’m reaching for my tinfoil hat now. From the official govt stats (omicron data)
The important bit being the last line.0 -
Mad_Malx said:
I’ve seen a bit of noise that yesterday’s numbers might not be as good as thought. I’m reaching for my tinfoil hat now. From the official govt stats (omicron data)
The important bit being the last line.
Anyone making predictions on one day's figures is a hostage to fortune (or an idiot).0
