Re: Coronavirus
 

"from food processing to transport to Border Force"

oh come on, that phrase is about as meaningless as you can get, but let's go with it to make you happy.

Food Processing:
butchers, bakers, fishmongers, fast food outlets, restaurants, hotels, raw food suppliers, food factory workers (including agency/zero contract) . . and more.

Transport:
hauliers/drivers (from HGV to light vans), warehouse workers, bus drivers, train/tube drivers and platform staff, taxi drivers, airport and ferry personnel . . and more.

Border Force:
customs officials, police, immigration services, and all the departments that associate with them . .

I'm no expert or mathematical genius, but that lot there adds up to well over 100,000 people . . before you start adding hospital workers (from cleaners to consultants) doctors surgeries, opticians, dentists, refuse collectors, shop workers, social workers, care workers . . and many more.

I'll ask again (because nowhere is giving me a decent answer) . .

What is a 'key worker' and why are there only 100,000 of them?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Perhaps you need to contact the person who said it (or his advisors, press officers, aides, etc.), as I assume most, if not all of the CF’ers, are in that group of people?

However, in the spirit of trying to be helpful, I googled "who are the key workers boris johnson mentioned" with a filter of "last 24 hours", and this was the first thing that came up…

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/ke...om-10-january/

Re: Coronavirus
 

The thing is Hugh, everywhere I look has almost the same answer you gave me earlier.

Surely there must be some media outlet that has the same question as a 68yr old bloke on a forum, or does every journalist, reporter and news program just decide to print/repeat what they're told 'because it's true, honest'?

Is journalism that 'dead' that nobody looks at a statement and questions its obvious lack of clarity?

The best I could find is from this Gov. Covid page from 4th Jan:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/p...sting-measures


. . . and that doesn't mention hospitals etc either, unless it's all 'wrapped up' in the 'critical national infrastructure' part?

and again, only 100,000 people?

Re: Coronavirus
 

You should have taken part in Johnson's Monday evening phone-in and asked the man himself. It would have been more relevant than The Sun's question about reducing VAT on energy.

However, Sky's running a live Q&A now until 7.30pm, so why not put your question to them here: https://news.sky.com/story/ask-a-que...l-now-12495443

Re: Coronavirus
 

They won't let me anywhere near the shysters :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

:D

Did you see this addition to my post?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Perhaps they dont really care that much as they know full details will come in time, like it has done every other time "key workers" has been used as a phrase.

Still, once its defined you can ask why the total isnt exactly 100,000, as stated :angel:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m classed as a key worker, I’m not being tested.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not key enough evidently.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No Paul, it's just more garbage thrown to the media that has no substance and is sufficiently vague enough to have no merit whatsoever.
The numbers don't add up. They might add up once (if) things become clearer, but that's no excuse to throw out something so 'piss poor' to the media in order to say 'hey look, we have a plan'

If the Government want me - and others - to take this Covid stuff seriously, they shouldn't release news that makes me think "if that's the best you can do, I'm going to ignore everything you say in future, so stuff your Covid" :rolleyes:


In 2019, there were 400,000 employed in food manufacturing, if just 25% of those 'qualify' for daily tests, that's 100,000 right there.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ed-kingdom-uk/




NHS Workforce Statistics - January 2021
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-info...s/january-2021


Again, if just 15% of that group 'qualify', it gets you over the 100,000 mark.


so . . just how important, or 'critical' is a role in Transport or Health Care in order to 'qualify' as one of the 100,000 to test daily?

and that's without adding all the other jobs/roles/professions in the muddied list.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I really dont care that much what the definition is tbh, certainly not enough to keep ranting on about it.

Ouch ... meoooww.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Cut them some slack Carth it's not easy to make stuff up as you go along bound to be the odd slip up.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, if anyone is on here via Virgin Media……………my pleasure.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I didn’t question whether you were a “key worker”.

As Carth points out 100,000 touted now (critical workers seems to be Government parlance) is far fewer than those who in retail, manufacturing, healthcare, critical national infrastructure, Civil Servants. The total under the key worker definition would be well into the millions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

aye, true enough I guess.
Probably I'm just an old (fashioned) fart that, for some strange reason, expects to see a little more 'professionalism' from those making the news, and those reporting it :blush: :erm:

Never, not in a million years . . . that would equate to at least 7 million tests a week . . . do we have enough test kits? ;) :ninja:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Haha. There’s not a supply issue it’s a demand issue. Always blame the plebs.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm with Carth on this. 100k more likely relates to the number of daily kits we can issue as oppose to the number of key or critical workers we have.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well it does seem to be somewhat loosely correlated with "people who can't work from home".


But that's somewhat unfair, isn't it? I suppose your 999 call handlers or whatever are vital service providers, yet there probably isn't much requirement for them to be sat in a call centre, given they could be given computers, headsets, softphones and VPN in from their homes, like most people are doing. You could do the same with basically any call centre setup which uses VOIP these days I suppose. Plus of course those who support the key infrastructure, a fair amount of this can be managed remotely too, with no systems support for the website or the tills tesco wouldn't be able to sell anything would they?



I suppose though that actually, those people who can work from home are already minimising their contact with colleagues and/or the general public, whereas checkout staff in a supermarket for example, can't do that and will be in contact with loads of people in a day, and the plastic screens, cloth over your mouth isn't necessarily going to stop the virus. It did already make sense that people in jobs in contact with the general public all day did a LFT before going to work to try and be on the safe side.


Though I guess in the short term this could lead to worsening of the staffing issues (with people returning +ve LFTs who have no symptoms or ones which they don't think are covid) it will at least reduce transmission by getting these people out of the system.


I've said for months now that testing is the key to finding people who have the virus so they don't pass it on. Aside from vaccination, which is still very good at preventing severe illness, they are the two key weapons. Working from home helps reduce the requirement for testing (no point testing if you're not going out to work is there) but the remaining Plan B measures don't really do a lot IMO. If we must insist on masks, at least go for a suggestion these are ffp2/kn95 where possible.

---------- Post added at 21:47 ---------- Previous post was at 21:42 ----------

I notice Aus have kicked that anti-vaxxer out. Good on them.

Re: Coronavirus
 

100k doesn’t in any way, shape or form represent the sum of all “key workers” minus those than can work from home. However they are clearly trying to prioritise what would be the highest class of key worker for testing to ensure they (and their organisations) can continue to supply key services.

The vast majority of key workers would only have an impact at very localised levels and not be worthy of being deemed a national priority given substantial limitations on supply.

Removing the confirmatory PCR for positive LFTs is a plus also. While there’s a tiny false positive rate when a hundreds of thousands of people are testing positive every day the marginal benefit of this is close to the vaccine efficacy of a least one, if not all, major vaccines.

However I’ll also agree, well done Australia for kicking Djokovic out. Whatever the merits of vaccine passports or not, the rules apply to all.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Interesting covid related updates in my local paper this morning. So far it has reported on several different developments including ------->

• More details on how military will be used to support hospitals
• 'We have never known this level of staff absence before' says British Medical Association chairman.
• Army serviced more than 400 requests for support since March 2020.
• 'Encouraging' signs London is emerging from Omicron waves, says minister.
• Military remains in discussion about further support for NHS elsewhere in the country.
• Almost 40,000 Covid-related staff absences at hospital trusts in England.
• 63 percent of patients in hospitals in England being treated 'primarily' for Covid.
• More than 500 police officers redeployed in Scotland as Covid strains emergency services.

with the head line part of the article stating that ....https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...alled-22672503

Re: Coronavirus
 

Never pass up the opportunity to swing the lead, as they say.

I doubt that to be accurate. in UK terms there are 141,000 available beds.

UK COVID data states 17,988 people are in hospital with COVID, that is 63% of 28,552.

I know the 63% was an England figure but if that was transposed to the UK, (which wouldn't be that far off) that would mean there are only 28,552 people in hospital total.

We wouldn't be screaming NHS crisis if that was the case as the whole system would only be at 20% capacity.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I had a quick look at the article. The headline in the article is wrong, the full sentence makes sense:

Re: Coronavirus
 

As the last post in this thread before mine was made at 21:59 on the 5th my post was written in an attempt to give us something to bring us up to date.

Forgive me for assuming that it would be an update that could be read and actually discussed rather just critiqued and used as a way to score points.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Give your head a wobble.

You posted, it is being discussed as (part of) of it was clearly incorrect.

If you don’t want it critiqued then fact check it, do a little research or just think « does that sound right » before you post it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ironic…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-120-000.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well I'm not complaining about it and secondly that was my whole point. Thanks for reinforcing it.

I don't need to fact check it, because I know some of the poorer characteristics of human nature. Anyone can phone in their work and/ or fake a positive LFT and hey presto, you get the week off.

If you are fortunate to work for a employer that will cover you, happy days.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not saying you're right or wrong, but I think there may be some 'front line staff' who, after working hard in probably stressful circumstances for the last month or longer, may be inclined to take advantage of a 'short rest' in order to get their heads straight and recharge their batteries rather than continue to push themselves beyond physical and mental boundaries.

Personally, although it's probably morally wrong, I'd cut them some slack because that short break may be the thing that stops them quitting and walking away for good.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Clap for the NHS is now accuse them of throwing sickies. Classy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

.. or in some cases, make up accusations that were never actually made. :erm:


The actual fact seems to be more like this ;

So 37% of those admitted, who tested positive, were not actually admitted due to covid, they just happened to test positive ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

If none of the hundreds off work have done that, you'd have a right to moan about it ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Print it off.


Failing that stay at home.

Re: Coronavirus
 

:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yet some are prepared to make accusations based on an unknown percentage

It would appear to be guilty until proven innocent, when it suits of course

Re: Coronavirus
 

Both are so wrong! We have become a nation of extremes!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Near neighbor went sick with COVID , waited for test ,it's was flu ,wonder how many people think it's COVID only to find when tested it's not :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Flu's quite serious and can kill. So not much better. (Or was it a cold?)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh, God, quick lock down!!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Clapping for the NHS is wrong? :confused:

I mean I know it’s virtue signalling, and it’s not as good as a pay rise for our key workers, but wrong seems (ironically) a bit extreme!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Seeing as nobody else has mentioned this one of the pioneers of mRna technology is now being banned off of social media platforms because he has questions and concerns about the covid medication. His name is Robert Malone he was and is a respected virologist but social media has slapped the misinformation label on him. If a person who pioneered the technology and is a virologist can't be trusted who the hell can.

Re: Coronavirus
 

.. or take an LFT.

Also, you only need one for large venues (in England anyway).

Re: Coronavirus
 

But where are the daily updates to keep us scared? :eh:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Here you go

"However, the NHS has been helped by lower pressures elsewhere. Flu is at rock-bottom levels. There are fewer than 50 patients in hospital with the virus in England."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59909860

Re: Coronavirus
 

Here’s a fairly even-handed bit of research into Dr Malone - btw, he’s an immunologist, not a virologist.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...s-vaccine-sci/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can you point out the "even handed" parts.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The few sources I saw listed him as a virologist but if he's an immunologist fair enough he's still qualified to talk about this and surely he has a viewpoint that should be available to the public.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes he has a viewpoint that he makes available but not much else. How long ago since he was a part of the research (not the inventor as claimed) of mRNA? How much did he input into it? What part of the reasearch was he involved with? Does his appearence on more than one time on Fox news make him more reliable to be truthful than anyone else?

Meanwhile I see the Scots are trying to appear sensible.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...8&d=1641690252

Re: Coronavirus
 

:tu:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thats what people said about Andrew Wakefield…

The point about science is documented research, consensus, and peer-review - just going on to Fox News doesn’t make their view correct.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Privatisation doesn't happen that way and the encroachment of private insurance won't be done that way. It will be done, and is being done, by stealth, bit by bit, without making waves in the political pond. With perennial underfunding the NHS becomes less effective and less available. If waiting queues for knee ops, cataracts, hip replacement, physiotherapy etc are months or years long, people with the cash will go private. Private insurance companies are burgeoning currently, tempting those with the funds to take whole or partial cover for all or some of their health needs. If you or I have taken out a £15.00 a month dental plan we are part of that trend. Private schemes giving access to GPs is currently being piloted without any particular government action or change in law.

Recently, I went to my doctor to have my troubled left knee looked at. I have been on a waiting list for surgery to tidy up my cartilage for four years! The doctor said it has been so long I have dropped off the list and that they will have to do X-Rays and soft tissue scans again before they can operate. There is a six-month wait to get a consultation. She offered me private consultation to speed things up. I refused on principle, so will have sleepless nights and difficulty walking downstairs until I get seen to. I pay an osteopath £48 a pop to keep me going. This service is not, and never has been, available anywhere in the NHS, so I'm not jumping any queues.

An old school friend of mine has cataracts that are making it impossible to drive at night and give him 'yellow-outs' when the sun is low. He has been told that he won't get them removed until he is virtually housebound. His job, as a buildings inspector, requiring a lot of driving is in jeopardy. The company running this contracted-out function of local authorities has lost patience. My friend has dug deep into savings to pay to get the op done!

There are 100s of thousands out there in long queues without the budget to jump the queue or who still hang on to their principles. In time, a decade or so, the majority will be on some kind private health insurance because, in the end, health, quality of life and saving life is a priority. People will not suffer for years if they can possibly pay a consultant or fund a monthly premium. In time we will be in exactly the same position as the USA, without a single change in legislation or any media furore. Those who protest loudly will be pronounced to be the looney left. We will have bog standard NHS hospitals with limited services and limited access for the poorest 25% to life-saving drugs and then a network of top-notch private hospitals and private services in NHS hospitals for the other 75%. Free at the point of need will be a principle still, but realistically only taken up by those with limited funds..

Re: Coronavirus
 

or just a tad dramatic ... :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Jab all over 5's to save schools

Stupid ill thought out idea.

People who are double/triple jabbed can still catch the virus, and if you do you (should) have to isolate so you don't spread it. One pupil testing positive puts the whole class into the 'close contact with' bracket of track & trace.

I'd guess 80% of the UK have had at least one jab, probably two by now, yet look at the rising number of people off work isolating :dozey:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Studies show the vaccinated are less likely to infect others.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....14.21264959v1

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is no benefit to the child in being vaccinated.

Teachers should be vaccinated.

If you test positive but are asymptomatic, or just have a mild common cold type illness, you shouldn’t self isolate. Take a couple of lemsip max strength and get on with it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

it only takes one :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

As a school governor I’d have expected you to have concern about child hospitalisations at their highest level in the pandemic, and recognise the value of vaccination at preventing this.

Equally as someone who hates the state mandating (or restricting) anything I’m also surprised you don’t support the rights of parents to have a safe and effective vaccine for their children.

All the anti-vax theories about mass infection of children being a positive, and boosting immunity, have been absolutely discredited by the emergence of Omicron.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Approx rate 10 per 100,000, and considering there is only approx 20,000 in total in hospital with COVID , that you then reduce that to a fifth of the total, which makes it a whopping total of 2.

As per ONS stats as of 7th January.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...issions-by-age

Aren’t Stats a wonderful way to misrepresent anything?

Hey, when it’s approved for kids under 12, I have no objection whatsoever to parents jabbing their kids if they want. I personally do not believe it is necessary for that cohort.

Well I’m not anti-vax, I have had all three Jabs. The benefit/risk for me seems clear. The same case has not been made for u12s, in my view.

But it’s something I’ll keep under review.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, I’ll agree you have done a job at at manipulating stats there to suit your agenda in that you’ve just used figures that don’t measure child hospitalisations to claim that they do. Ironically, you’ve bundled them in with vaccinated and boosted hospitalisations to skew the figures.

I didn’t describe you as anti-vax - I just pointed out their agenda had been discredited by reinfection in the population as a whole and increased hospitalisations among children.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But the more that are infected and asymptomatic, the higher the likelyhood of spreading the infection through greater viral load - so if only one is infected and unvaccinated, less likely to infect others.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s the one in the middle

Don’t see how being in hospital with COVID either unvaccinated, vaccinated or boostered skews anything.

All two or three of them.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But if one is infected, don't the others (in class) have to isolate whether jabbed or not?

Serious question because the 'rules' as I see them are all over the place

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, Wales is being dramatic.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sp...vid-rules.html

and

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59897028

Re: Coronavirus
 

So not 2 children as per your previous conclusion? Your error is applying the 20,000 hospitalisations to the rate the ONS provide. Perhaps you could see if the school have a statistics textbook you can borrow. It’d help you reach a considered conclusion rather than take your lead from what you read on the internet.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well I’m extrapolating from a barchart so it’s approx, but in that ball park.

I suppose you see 3 from 2 and think that’s a huge 30% increase?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The fact you are using the 20,000 figure at all to reach your conclusion when the ONS have already calculated the rate based on the population figure for each age group is where you are going wrong.

3 from 2 is a 50% increase but I digress.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No they don't as if you're under 18 yrs 6 months you don't need to isolate if you're a close contact unless you test positive yourself...

Re: Coronavirus
 

aah right . . . so how would vaccinating all 5yr olds save schools. . . and from what?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think the idea is to jab the kids in an attempt to try and stop them spreading it to the teachers, my grandson is just six years old and I can tell you now there is no way his parents will let him get the jab, it's nonsense to jab kids that young imo, unless of course they are in the vulnerable category.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ok help me out then.

U.K. population 67million.

ONS stats say 130 in every 100,000 aged 85 are in hospital (according to your interpretation)

There’s 670 x 100,000’s in 67 million.

That would mean, according to your interpretation, that there are 130 x 670 over 85’s in hospital with COVID = 87,100 and that’s just that one group.

I therefore suggest you are interpreting the information incorrectly.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, because most of the 67 million aren't over 85.

There are about 1.5 million over 85s. So 15 x 130 = 1950 in hospital.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-by-age-group/

Re: Coronavirus
 

What are you on about, it’s already been divided by age group. See attachment- middle chart (in earlier post)I used the over 85 metric which is (looking at the chart) around 130, per 100,000.

It doesn’t state per 100,000 of what. According to JFman’s interpretation the ONS stats state that is the hospitalisation rate per 100,000 per “Population”

I believe it is pro-rata per those actually hospitalised.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well aside from the fact it's admissions over the week rather than numbers in hospital, I've re-read the ONS site and I still believe my interpretation is correct. And 1,950 feels like a reasonable figure. 87,100 is clearly bonkers.

Also it says "The hospitalisation rate for COVID-19 was at 18.41 per 100,000 in week 52", which seems about right if you average out all the age groups.

But I agree the ONS could make a lot clearer

Wouldn't it add up to 100,000 in that case?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Fair observation.

Agreed, 87,100 is clearly bonkers. Which is why JFmans assertion that it is per population is clearly incorrect.

I think the stats are just there to confuse you.

You correctly state that the overall hospitalisation rate for the week was 18.41 per 100,000 across all ages…and that could well be at a population level too.

But the chart, just below that statement, that I refer to, says something completely different.

No, it would depend on the hospitalised total and be based against that. As mentioned earlier if the hospitalised total is 20,000, then the pro-rate figure of 100,000 is one fifth of that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This may well be the future, my partner has private health insurance through her work and I can take it out for £10 a month or something silly, my eye issues are such I could do with just ringing a GP for advice every now and then and obviously that's not possible with the NHS anymore and with every interaction with my surgery the liklihood of me taking it out increases but so far I've stopped myself because that's what they want

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's been a common hypothesis since the start of the pandemic. I have posted articles on this several times on this thread.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ikea cuts sick pay for unvaccinated staff forced to self-isolate

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59930206

UK trade unions are concerned . . because some of their members who refuse vaccinations won't get full sick pay :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

TUF

Re: Coronavirus
 

If like the majority of the country they live pay cheque to pay cheque then the unions have a point, I was on SSP for 4 months last year and it would be a toss up if I was made homeless or starved to death first if I had to rely on that alone

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is it legal to discriminate in this way?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes.

Company enhanced sickness absence payments are a matter for employment contracts. Payments over and above statutory sick pay are usually for a limited number of days per year though some employers may use their discretion to extend company sick pay in exceptional circumstances (I benefited from this once, years ago, during an extended absence). But basically, as long as they pay statutory sick pay to everyone they’re within the law. They don’t have to pay you any more.

This is as it should be. If an individual exercises their freedom to choose the risk of going unvaccinated, then the risks should be borne by that individual. There’s no good reason why their employer should carry the can.

Re: Coronavirus
 

sounds like ikea will become a covid hot bed when the unvaccinated stop testing and just turn up for work to receive full pay when they show symptoms.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Think it's already a hotspot - was there yesterday, it was rammed and plenty of punters not wearing masks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wouldnt that be illegal atm ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

if you don't know you have it ,because you haven't tested for it how can it be.

and let's not forget the unvaccinated are "selfish, evil ,a danger to society , good tennis players"........

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think we are going to keep on testing forever.

I mean, it is completly impossible to think we can vaccinate the world every 6 months when some parts of Africa havent even had their first vaccine yet.


I think things will become normal again in the coming months....You won't have to test unless going into places like hospitals, care homes, etc.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As soon as people are charged for testing the obsession will die out.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, with the relaxation of the requirement for PCR testing, we can now sit back, relax, and watch the number of infections come down rapidly. :D

Panic over, as you were, masks off....

Re: Coronavirus
 

Fanciful.

Re: Coronavirus
 

My last job said that if you have to self isolate you would only get SSP, otherwise it would be full pay.


This was long before vaccines.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's why people wanted the Government to increase SSP to ensure people who were infected didn't go in back before vaccines were so widely administered.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you had no symptoms, that would be fine, however, thats not what you said.

If you show symptoms you should isolate and get a test.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/corona...nd-what-to-do/
Since thats the NHS site, Im not clear if thats an actual legal requirement.

Re: Coronavirus
 

you might argue you thought it was just a cold apparently they have similar symptoms.

don't forget the unvaccinated are selfish and evil.........

Re: Coronavirus
 

How so? Fewer tests, fewer positive outcomes.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pointless. I fail to see the reason for needing to isolate.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:15 ----------

Well, it is guaranteed that the fewer tests, the fewer recorded infections.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We should use the percentage of tests that are positive anyway, that's in part why we get hysterical headlines about having the highest cases in Europe that ignore how many tests we do.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What about the people that couldn't get tested or just didn't bother? They are missing from the figures too.
My son needed a pcr test a couple of weeks ago none available either to book or by post so he'll be missing from the figures.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I find it incredible that so many people are not seeing the link between the number of tests and the number of recorded infections.

It’s no wonder the numbers have been so high latterly with the massive increase in PCR testing. With the rules changing which allow for lateral flow tests instead, just watch the numbers plummet.

The focus on these numbers is causing far more alarm than is justified. Most people are getting this with minimal, if any symptoms. Time to get this in perspective. We haven’t been jabbed thrice for no reason.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Time will tell if that's true.