The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
Pross said:
I really struggle to see any benefit in shutting pubs at 11pm by which time people have been in them hours. Restricting numbers at events makes more sense but the reality is that in many cases they are no longer viable and simply get cancelled (you could argue that is the intent, get a lockdown without actually calling a lockdown).kingstongraham said:
Is it worth mentioning the restrictions in South Africa that shut pubs at 11pm, have a curfew between midnight and 4am, close nightclubs and restrict indoor gatherings to 750 and outdoor to 2,000? Kind of Drakeford style, isn't it?surrey_commuter said:
It is strange isn’t it.Stevo_666 said:To borrow from what Surrey Commuter said a while back about the initial spread of Covid in Italy last year, we have a TV that allows us to see a few weeks into the future. We are now tuned into the South African channel and they are still broadcasting OK.
My concern is that Boris is under huge pressure to do nothing (his natural inclination) yet is obviously looking at data that is making him censored himself.
My hope that this is the beginning of the end as we will have seen off a wave without too much bother and we will be much closer to herd immunity
It's good news though apart from the big numbers of infections. If we reckon it's generally benign, should we get rid of the mandatory isolation period and let people make their own minds up according to their risk level and concern for infecting others? Makes sense.
Good point. It makes no sense.0 -
I would like to think that politicians are being presented with a menu of measures with estimated effects on the R number.kingstonian said:Pross said:
I really struggle to see any benefit in shutting pubs at 11pm by which time people have been in them hours. Restricting numbers at events makes more sense but the reality is that in many cases they are no longer viable and simply get cancelled (you could argue that is the intent, get a lockdown without actually calling a lockdown).kingstongraham said:
Is it worth mentioning the restrictions in South Africa that shut pubs at 11pm, have a curfew between midnight and 4am, close nightclubs and restrict indoor gatherings to 750 and outdoor to 2,000? Kind of Drakeford style, isn't it?surrey_commuter said:
It is strange isn’t it.Stevo_666 said:To borrow from what Surrey Commuter said a while back about the initial spread of Covid in Italy last year, we have a TV that allows us to see a few weeks into the future. We are now tuned into the South African channel and they are still broadcasting OK.
My concern is that Boris is under huge pressure to do nothing (his natural inclination) yet is obviously looking at data that is making him censored himself.
My hope that this is the beginning of the end as we will have seen off a wave without too much bother and we will be much closer to herd immunity
It's good news though apart from the big numbers of infections. If we reckon it's generally benign, should we get rid of the mandatory isolation period and let people make their own minds up according to their risk level and concern for infecting others? Makes sense.
Good point. It makes no sense.
In reality I think we are now at the stage where they are making decisions so that they can be seen to be doing something, whilst putting the fewest number of noses out of joint.
e.g. Limiting attendance at football matches just before the winter break in Scotland.0 -
To be truthful Sturgeon & Drakeford have been playing politics the whole time we have been struggling with covid, do they not understand businesses will go under with all there games.First.Aspect said:
I would like to think that politicians are being presented with a menu of measures with estimated effects on the R number.kingstonian said:Pross said:
I really struggle to see any benefit in shutting pubs at 11pm by which time people have been in them hours. Restricting numbers at events makes more sense but the reality is that in many cases they are no longer viable and simply get cancelled (you could argue that is the intent, get a lockdown without actually calling a lockdown).kingstongraham said:
Is it worth mentioning the restrictions in South Africa that shut pubs at 11pm, have a curfew between midnight and 4am, close nightclubs and restrict indoor gatherings to 750 and outdoor to 2,000? Kind of Drakeford style, isn't it?surrey_commuter said:
It is strange isn’t it.Stevo_666 said:To borrow from what Surrey Commuter said a while back about the initial spread of Covid in Italy last year, we have a TV that allows us to see a few weeks into the future. We are now tuned into the South African channel and they are still broadcasting OK.
My concern is that Boris is under huge pressure to do nothing (his natural inclination) yet is obviously looking at data that is making him censored himself.
My hope that this is the beginning of the end as we will have seen off a wave without too much bother and we will be much closer to herd immunity
It's good news though apart from the big numbers of infections. If we reckon it's generally benign, should we get rid of the mandatory isolation period and let people make their own minds up according to their risk level and concern for infecting others? Makes sense.
Good point. It makes no sense.
In reality I think we are now at the stage where they are making decisions so that they can be seen to be doing something, whilst putting the fewest number of noses out of joint.
e.g. Limiting attendance at football matches just before the winter break in Scotland.
Drakeford stopping Jabs why clearly not a big issue as they have been making out.So Far!1 -
If this does continue, Wales and Scotland can end their new restrictions earlier than they thought.
This number feels like a real one that won't just go up because of increasing infection rates.1 -
Will be interesting to see how Turgid fares with the public enquiry about bunging elderly people with Covid back into care homes. Decision made on the hoof without any scientific or public health backing. She will probably say it was all very difficult and in her earnest voice that we were doing our best but mistakes were made, and carry on scott free.loltoride said:
To be truthful Sturgeon & Drakeford have been playing politics the whole time we have been struggling with covid, do they not understand businesses will go under with all there games.First.Aspect said:
I would like to think that politicians are being presented with a menu of measures with estimated effects on the R number.kingstonian said:Pross said:
I really struggle to see any benefit in shutting pubs at 11pm by which time people have been in them hours. Restricting numbers at events makes more sense but the reality is that in many cases they are no longer viable and simply get cancelled (you could argue that is the intent, get a lockdown without actually calling a lockdown).kingstongraham said:
Is it worth mentioning the restrictions in South Africa that shut pubs at 11pm, have a curfew between midnight and 4am, close nightclubs and restrict indoor gatherings to 750 and outdoor to 2,000? Kind of Drakeford style, isn't it?surrey_commuter said:
It is strange isn’t it.Stevo_666 said:To borrow from what Surrey Commuter said a while back about the initial spread of Covid in Italy last year, we have a TV that allows us to see a few weeks into the future. We are now tuned into the South African channel and they are still broadcasting OK.
My concern is that Boris is under huge pressure to do nothing (his natural inclination) yet is obviously looking at data that is making him censored himself.
My hope that this is the beginning of the end as we will have seen off a wave without too much bother and we will be much closer to herd immunity
It's good news though apart from the big numbers of infections. If we reckon it's generally benign, should we get rid of the mandatory isolation period and let people make their own minds up according to their risk level and concern for infecting others? Makes sense.
Good point. It makes no sense.
In reality I think we are now at the stage where they are making decisions so that they can be seen to be doing something, whilst putting the fewest number of noses out of joint.
e.g. Limiting attendance at football matches just before the winter break in Scotland.
Drakeford stopping Jabs why clearly not a big issue as they have been making out.0 -
kingstongraham said:
If this does continue, Wales and Scotland can end their new restrictions earlier than they thought.
This number feels like a real one that won't just go up because of increasing infection rates.
And important still to remember that London is still a bit of an outlier because of the number of non-vaccinated people, and they make up 80-90% of hospitalised people.0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/24/government-plans-uk-wide-covid-booster-alert-to-mobile-phonesThe proposed copy of the text message will say: “Get boosted now. Every adult needs a Covid-19 booster vaccine to protect against Omicron. Get your Covid-19 vaccine or booster. See NHS website for details.”
It is understood that the mobile operators will all enable the message to be sent, but some are agreeing with others’ reluctance given the highly politicised nature of the vaccination programme.
"Politicised", FFS? Since when have conspiracy theories constituted politics?0 -
Also, note there is a difference between a meteor and a meteorite. The latter falls to earth. The former stays up in the atmosphere.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Meteoric also means "Of or relating to the earth's atmosphere."briantrumpet said:
But they don't upwards. No-one ever says 'Meteoric fall' though, which (to me) suggests that its use in the more common phrase is nonsensical, as it doesn't add meaning or make it easier to conceptualise.rjsterry said:
Aaaargh, it's not flawed: you've just misunderstood. Meteorites do move really fast, do they not?briantrumpet said:
Anything wrong with 'rapid'? I don't much care for metaphors whose imagery is flawed. Incidentally, it's a relatively modern coinage.rjsterry said:
(It refers to the speed rather than the direction.)briantrumpet said:The number of people in hospital has just fed through to a small upwards turn in the OWID graphs, but the number in ICUs is still edging down, as the number of infections continues its 'meteoric rise'. (There's a phrase that annoys me, as generally meteors don't appear to rise.)
Also, we could do with a thread on Brian's language complaints.
Good point, as in 'meteorology', though that doesn't make the cliché any more apposite.1 -
Neither of those say here is any evidence against paracetamol. Main link from the second (acetominophen is paracetamol) says: (edited because I’m on the Xmas juice)joe2019 said:mrb123 said:
Do you have a source for that?joe2019 said:pblakeney said:
Take paracetamol before going. Worked for me.Pross said:
Bit mine this evening, not looking forward to it as I've heard a lot more people saying they've felt rough after this than with the original two.Jezyboy said:Well booster seems to have fücked me right up this morning.
Zero effects from all 3 jabs.
Taking painkillers such as paracetamol before receiving the COVID-19 vaccine to prevent side effects is not recommended.
This is because painkillers may affect how well the vaccine works.
Sure:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/experts-try-to-avoid-painkillers-before-or-after-covid-vaccine/
There’s no firm evidence to suggest one any of the three options is more or less likely to dampen the immunity-building process of a vaccine.
The World Health Organization recommends acetaminophen for treating pain or fever associated with Covid-19, based on some early anecdotal concerns and some research suggesting ibuprofen or other NSAIDS might contribute to worsening systems. The general consensus, however, is that any of the three painkillers are probably fine, if used in recommended doses.
“We are recommending acetaminophen,” says Paul Sax, MD, clinical director of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. “There’s still this theoretical concern about ibuprofen, although it’s probably fine,” Sax tells Elemental.
Edit apologies, didn’t spot This was a few pages back.0 -
Mad_Malx said:
Neither of those say here is any evidence against paracetamol. From the second (acetominophen is paracetamol) :joe2019 said:mrb123 said:
Do you have a source for that?joe2019 said:pblakeney said:
Take paracetamol before going. Worked for me.Pross said:
Bit mine this evening, not looking forward to it as I've heard a lot more people saying they've felt rough after this than with the original two.Jezyboy said:Well booster seems to have fücked me right up this morning.
Zero effects from all 3 jabs.
Taking painkillers such as paracetamol before receiving the COVID-19 vaccine to prevent side effects is not recommended.
This is because painkillers may affect how well the vaccine works.
Sure:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/experts-try-to-avoid-painkillers-before-or-after-covid-vaccine/
The World Health Organization recommends acetaminophen for treating pain or fever associated with Covid-19, based on some early anecdotal concerns and some research suggesting ibuprofen or other NSAIDS might contribute to worsening systems. The general consensus, however, is that any of the three painkillers are probably fine, if used in recommended doses.
“We are recommending acetaminophen,” says Paul Sax, MD, clinical director of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. “There’s still this theoretical concern about ibuprofen, although it’s probably fine,” Sax tells Elemental.
Edit apologies, didn’t spot This was a few pages back.
From the WHO source:
"Taking painkillers such as paracetamol before receiving the COVID-19 vaccine to prevent side effects is not recommended. This is because it is not known how painkillers may affect how well the vaccine works."
0 -
First signs of what you might call the beginnings of a 'pushback' against omicron restrictions, perhaps...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/24/omicron-covid-symptoms-uk-guidance-zoe-study0 -
imposter2.0 said:
First signs of what you might call the beginnings of a 'pushback' against omicron restrictions, perhaps...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/24/omicron-covid-symptoms-uk-guidance-zoe-study
Eh? You must be reading a different article from the one I'm reading, as that's talking about symptoms, and the misleading list on the government website. Tim Spector's been on this for ages, wondering why they aren't updating it.0 -
How is that a push back against restrictions?imposter2.0 said:First signs of what you might call the beginnings of a 'pushback' against omicron restrictions, perhaps...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/24/omicron-covid-symptoms-uk-guidance-zoe-study0 -
The headline. I know what the article says.briantrumpet said:imposter2.0 said:First signs of what you might call the beginnings of a 'pushback' against omicron restrictions, perhaps...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/24/omicron-covid-symptoms-uk-guidance-zoe-study
Eh? You must be reading a different article from the one I'm reading, as that's talking about symptoms, and the misleading list on the government website. Tim Spector's been on this for ages, wondering why they aren't updating it.0 -
Ha - I wonder what colour they are going to choose for >3200 cases per 100k?
0 -
So the part of your quote not in bold backs the point that Mad_Malx made. There is no evidence against paracetamol, they just don't know if painkillers affect the way the vaccine works. All that seems to be saying is don't use painkillers just in case they have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the vaccine.joe2019 said:Mad_Malx said:
Neither of those say here is any evidence against paracetamol. From the second (acetominophen is paracetamol) :joe2019 said:mrb123 said:
Do you have a source for that?joe2019 said:pblakeney said:
Take paracetamol before going. Worked for me.Pross said:
Bit mine this evening, not looking forward to it as I've heard a lot more people saying they've felt rough after this than with the original two.Jezyboy said:Well booster seems to have fücked me right up this morning.
Zero effects from all 3 jabs.
Taking painkillers such as paracetamol before receiving the COVID-19 vaccine to prevent side effects is not recommended.
This is because painkillers may affect how well the vaccine works.
Sure:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/experts-try-to-avoid-painkillers-before-or-after-covid-vaccine/
The World Health Organization recommends acetaminophen for treating pain or fever associated with Covid-19, based on some early anecdotal concerns and some research suggesting ibuprofen or other NSAIDS might contribute to worsening systems. The general consensus, however, is that any of the three painkillers are probably fine, if used in recommended doses.
“We are recommending acetaminophen,” says Paul Sax, MD, clinical director of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. “There’s still this theoretical concern about ibuprofen, although it’s probably fine,” Sax tells Elemental.
Edit apologies, didn’t spot This was a few pages back.
From the WHO source:
"Taking painkillers such as paracetamol before receiving the COVID-19 vaccine to prevent side effects is not recommended. This is because it is not known how painkillers may affect how well the vaccine works."0 -
Wife & 3 boys all negativetailwindhome said:
Much less confident.TheBigBean said:
Are you less confident about your March 2020 theory or just think you have it again?tailwindhome said:PCR booked for tomorrow.
Expecting +ve confirmation on Xmas Day
We seem just to have been lucky so far and that ran out
Wife & 3 boys were tested today - we'll see what that brings.
Daughter most likely caught it at uni but that would mean it did take 5 days to trigger a LFT. Also possible she didn't, came home, went to her coffee shop job and got infected there
Honestly though, who knows
We're all getting it eventually
Eldest boy spent 48 hrs in his room self-isolating as a close contact having shared a car journey with his sister when she went positive
Got his negative result, came down for his Chinese, grabbed a Koppaberg from the fridge and is back in his room playing FIFA.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!2 -
Our lad was much the same, but he was watching rugby rather than playing FIFA.tailwindhome said:
Got his negative result, came down for his Chinese, grabbed a Koppaberg from the fridge and is back in his room playing FIFA.tailwindhome said:
Much less confident.TheBigBean said:
Are you less confident about your March 2020 theory or just think you have it again?tailwindhome said:PCR booked for tomorrow.
Expecting +ve confirmation on Xmas Day
We seem just to have been lucky so far and that ran out
Wife & 3 boys were tested today - we'll see what that brings.
Daughter most likely caught it at uni but that would mean it did take 5 days to trigger a LFT. Also possible she didn't, came home, went to her coffee shop job and got infected there
Honestly though, who knows
We're all getting it eventually
Good news on the negatives though.0 -
@joe2019 I feel your pain. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
@Pross @Mad_Malx The WHO recommendation is to avoid Paracetamol BEFORE you go in to have your vaccine.
As in, don’t take them to pre-empt any pain you think you might suffer, ie just MTFU.
They are fine with you taking Paracetamol AFTER you have had your shot if needed to help with any side effects such as pain.
Is the distinction between “before” and “after” really that difficult to understand?
Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
No-one was disputing that, Mad_Malx said there was no evidence that taking it before would affect the effectiveness of the vaccine. Joe in response posted "evidence" half of which he made bold stating the advice not to take painkillers before but the second half clearly stated this was because they don't know how they may effect things. That doesn't sound to me like evidence that that they reduce effectiveness. It's not me struggling with my comprehension.Wheelspinner said:@joe2019 I feel your pain. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
@Pross @Mad_Malx The WHO recommendation is to avoid Paracetamol BEFORE you go in to have your vaccine.
As in, don’t take them to pre-empt any pain you think you might suffer, ie just MTFU.
They are fine with you taking Paracetamol AFTER you have had your shot if needed to help with any side effects such as pain.
Is the distinction between “before” and “after” really that difficult to understand?0 -
Yes that's right. Denmark show about 12% of cases are reinfections so UK numbers will be short by about that. Can understand that they did not want to double count cases but not sure why they can't be counted after X months.kingstongraham said:
If they were lucky/unlucky enough to get a positive PCR test back then, I think it does mean that. Obviously if they were never registered as a positive test when they were infected (like me), then that will be picked up as a new case.First.Aspect said:
I think that reference is missing some vital context about what "reinfection" means in the numbers. She can't possibly mean that people who had it 18 months ago are excluded from the figures.kingstongraham said:
I didn't stop looking to see where I read it. Twitter feed of an epidemiologist at the UKHSA (who produce the numbers). Thread is worth a read.First.Aspect said:
That's not correct. Stop looking, or you will just end up on a Daily Mail Twitter feed.kingstongraham said:I'm sure I read earlier that the positive case numbers don't include those who have previously tested positive, so with the substantially higher number of reinfections with Omicron, the real number of cases is probably higher than the official stats. Can't find it now.
No numbers being given for the next two days.0 -
Fair enough. What was your point then?Pross said:
No-one was disputing that, Mad_Malx said there was no evidence that taking it before would affect the effectiveness of the vaccine. Joe in response posted "evidence" half of which he made bold stating the advice not to take painkillers before but the second half clearly stated this was because they don't know how they may effect things. That doesn't sound to me like evidence that that they reduce effectiveness. It's not me struggling with my comprehension.Wheelspinner said:@joe2019 I feel your pain. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
@Pross @Mad_Malx The WHO recommendation is to avoid Paracetamol BEFORE you go in to have your vaccine.
As in, don’t take them to pre-empt any pain you think you might suffer, ie just MTFU.
They are fine with you taking Paracetamol AFTER you have had your shot if needed to help with any side effects such as pain.
Is the distinction between “before” and “after” really that difficult to understand?
Also, in both those articles the recommendation is still the same - avoid taking painkillers if at all possible.
Further, I'd suggest that Mad_Malx is perhaps being selective about "no evidence" against paracetamol. The article he quotes also says this:
"Painkillers are known to interfere with effectiveness of flu shots. The possibility has not been studied with Covid vaccines, but Mina and other experts say it’s possible, so they advise skipping painkillers if you can bear it. If you’re already routinely taking them for a health condition, you should not stop without talking to your doctor.
“Don’t use them beforehand,” Mina told a group of reporters last week. And afterward, “try very hard not to.”
I've done the bold and italics bits.
There's quite a difference between "there's no evidence" and "we have not even looked for evidence".
Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
So. Turns out only the daughter tested positive
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
tailwindhome said:
So. Turns out only the daughter tested positive
Marry Christmas, TWH. Guess you'll be staying in...0 -
We’ve gone from knowing one or two cases to just about every family very quickly.
Merry Christmas everyone.0 -
Merry Christmas all!
(One family member not doing a test today, because if it comes up positive we won't be able to go to the pub.)0 -
Giving the gift of Christmas?kingstongraham said:Merry Christmas all!
(One family member not doing a test today, because if it comes up positive we won't be able to go to the pub.)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 - youngest daughter just tested positive.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
Bad luck. I think it'll be hard to avoid it, given its transmissibility, and that will only be harder if one has a multi-person household.DeVlaeminck said:**** it - youngest daughter just tested positive.
0 -
So has Mrs GTi. Negative this morning so her parents came over as planned. Positive tonight so tomorrow’s off and I’ve told them to do daily lateral flow tests for the next few days, as will me and the kids while the wife moves into the conservatory. Fun times 😶DeVlaeminck said:**** it - youngest daughter just tested positive.
0
