Cable Forum - Coronavirus

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Coronavirus (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33709417)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053878)

Agreed.

Trouble is, the moral tone has been set on high by the likes of Margaret Ferrier and Dominic Cummings.

Very true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053878)

Agreed.

Trouble is, the moral tone has been set on high by the likes of Margaret Ferrier and Dominic Cummings.

That is just about the sum of it.

Link

Quote:

In a statement, the Met said it had considered possible offences under the Health Protection Regulations 2020, which makes it an offence for people in England to come into contact with others when they should be self-isolating.

The force added: "On detailed examination of this new legislation, and following legal advice, it was concluded that this regulation is applicable only after the 28 September.

"In this case the test occurred prior to the 29 September and therefore the regulation does not apply.

:confused: She travelled back to Scotland on the 29th, after receiving a positive test result.
Regulations

Quote:

2.—(1) This regulation applies where an adult is notified, other than by means of the NHS Covid 19 smartphone app developed and operated by the Secretary of State, by a person specified in paragraph (4) that—
(a)they have—
(i)tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (“coronavirus”) pursuant to a test after 28th September 2020, or
(ii)had close contact after 28th September 2020 with someone who has tested positive for coronavirus;

Surely the 28th Sept reference is to when they where notified, not when the test was taken. If the date was meant to refer to the test date it would say something like "to a test administered after". It would seem absurd to be able to be tested a few minutes before midnight on the 28th and not have to self-isolate with a positive result. Wouldn't 1(a)(ii) also apply in a roundabout way, as she would've been in contact with herself, as an positively tested person?

From the Explanatory memorandum

Quote:

6.7 The Regulations provide for this as follows. Regulation 2 requires adults who have
been notified, otherwise than through the NHS Covid-19 app that they have tested
positive for coronavirus or have been identified as a close contact of someone who
has tested positive, to self-isolate for a specified period.

Even those notified before 29th Sept, would've had to self-isolate from 28th Sept onwards.

BBC Link
As of 28th Sept.

Quote:

The law applies to people who have tested positive for coronavirus, or who have been told by NHS Test and Trace to self-isolate because they have been in close contact with someone with the virus.

Govt press release on Sept rules.

Quote:

Legal duty to self-isolate comes into force today (Monday 28 September), to ensure compliance and reduce spread of COVID-19
...

If someone or another member of their household has symptoms of coronavirus, they should, as now, isolate immediately. If someone receives a positive test result, they are now required by law to self-isolate for the period ending 10 days after displaying symptoms or after the date of the test, if they did not have symptoms. Other members of their household must self-isolate for the period ending 14 days after symptom onset, or after the date of the initial person’s positive test.

All in all, what are the Met going on about? :mad: Nowhere does it say it's dependent on the date of the test.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053866)

No one's pretending it's a magic bullet. It's a way of getting the R-level down to something manageable. If it has to happen again in the future until we achieve herd immunity through vaccination, I don't see that as a reason for not doing it again.

But nobody's ever found a deployable coronavirus vaccine.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7177048/

This article is well worth a read. It says that no SARS nor MERS vaccine ever became commercially available.

The conclusion of the study is as follows:

Quote:

The vaccine development efforts for coronavirus strains such as SARS and MERS can help to direct the vaccine development efforts for COVID-19. The development of highly effective and safe vaccines for COVID-19 should consider aspects such as the possibility of ADE and other adverse effects previously observed with SARS and MERS. Even though these features have only been seen in some animal models and vaccination regimens, the possibility is still there to be considered for COVID-19. In addition, these vaccine development efforts should address the possibility of the short-term immunogenicity derived from neutralizing antibodies, as also previously observed for SARS and MERS-CoV after natural infection.

The possibility of exploiting T cell responses for coronavirus vaccination should also be considered (along with B cell responses). These responses have been shown to be persistent and protective in animal models. Furthermore, there is evidence of long-term persistence in humans. Strategies such as adjuvantation, tailoring of the S glycoprotein, different routes of vaccination and the use of unexplored vaccine platforms for enhancing immunogenicity and preventing potential undesired effects should also be considered. It is worth mentioning that employing the N protein of the coronavirus for vaccination could have several benefits. As previously mentioned, there is the potential of providing long-term cross-protection when employing this antigen. Of note, the evidence of short-term immunogenicity and protection in coronavirus-exposed individuals does not mean that an effective vaccine is not possible. Vaccines for other now eradicated diseases that lack naturally acquired immunity prove this point (e.g., smallpox). The emergence of COVID-19 should also serve for elevating our comprehension and expertise in the abatement of pathogenic microorganisms of global health importance.

The adverse effects of the SARS/MERS vaccine efforts need to be borne in mind for CV and this is why a vaccine would likely take years to be commercially available.

However the article moots that a vaccine that stimulates T-Cell production could be useful.

Repeated lockdown cycles are incompatible with human behaviour and thus we can never eliminate the virus in that way, never mind trashing the economy beyond the point of salvation.

Those who support lockdowns, please explain how this will kill the virus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36053887)

That is just about the sum of it.

Not quite the sum of it you forgot the labour mp's who broke or bent the rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36053895)

Not quite the sum of it you forgot the labour mp's who broke or bent the rules.

No excuses there either...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053860)

I think Labour wants us to follow scientific advice of a 2/3 week national circuit-break with the same compensation as the earlier national lock-down. Boris seems to have played the political game and ignored the scientists' recommendations to garner much-needed support in his party for himself.

Local lock-downs don't provide the same compensation so unless hospitals get overwhelmed as the did in the Liverpool City region then I guess local politicians of all colours will be incentivised to hold out for full compensation at the expense of increased restrictions. Personally, with borrowing so cheap and keeping the virus at bay a necessity, I can't see why they can't give the same level of compensation as they did before.

You still have to pay back what you borrowed, Andrew.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36053892)

Link

All in all, what are the Met going on about? :mad: Nowhere does it say it's dependent on the date of the test.

Have removed some of the post for brevity. There are a couple of issues - first being that a change of law could be seen as applying retrospectively to the chain of events in motion making a prosecution more difficult.

The second being she went home following the result. I'm not sure if the law can mandate someone to undertake a hotel stay regardless of whether they can claim it as an expense.

That said I don't think it's a defence for an MP to act in a way any reasonable person would say goes against the guidance, regardless of whether it was in legislation or not. Her actions in travelling to London fell below that threshold and she should resign.

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36053887)

That is just about the sum of it.

How many more times:rolleyes:, Cummings DID self-isolate, it wasn't a law, and the actions were taken in response to consideration of care of a child. He didn't travel just for the sake of it. He DIDN'T have symptoms at the time of the journey.

Quote:

But he said he feared both him and his wife becoming incapacitated and unable to look after their four-year-old. He has cited a section in the advice that says: "We are aware that not all these measures will be possible if you are living with children, but keep following this guidance to the best of your ability."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36053862)

What is the scientific advice trying to achieve? Is their mission to keep the number of simultaneous cases down?

They did that before and it's rampant now. Won't this just repeat itself?

Are we plebs wiser than SAGE?

I think we are, Steph. But we haven’t been called upon to serve. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053898)

You still have to pay back what you borrowed, Andrew.

What's the current repayment plan on the £2 trillion of debt we've got so far?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053866)

Christ, Andrew, I’m glad you’re not in control. I would fear for your safety!

Only ‘at risk’ people should be isolated. Why penalise the rest of us when it’s not necessary and when that is ruining the economy? It makes no sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053899)

The law was effective as of Mon 28th Sept. That is the day she received the positive test result.
The press release of Mon 28th Sept states.

Quote:

From today, people in England will be required by law to self-isolate if they test positive or are contacted by NHS Test and Trace.

She still will have been in close contact after the 28th with somebody who had tested positive, even though that somebody was herself. Would be rather absurd if somebody in close contact with her on the 29th had to self-isolate, but she didn't have to self-isolate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053902)

What's the current repayment plan on the £2 trillion of debt we've got so far?

You tell me. You are the economist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053902)

What's the current repayment plan on the £2 trillion of debt we've got so far?

Send the bill to China.