Cable Forum - Coronavirus (OLD)

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

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

- - Coronavirus (OLD) (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33708712)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36043371)

Coronavirus: Face coverings in England's shops to be compulsory from 24 July

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53397617

Only yesterday, Michael Gove said he did not think face coverings should be compulsory in shops in England...

I think Boris Johnson's experience of Covid-19 has made him keener to impose such restrictions than Michael Gove.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36043381)

I think Boris Johnson's experience of Covid-19 has made him keener to impose such restrictions than Michael Gove.

I was only thinking that earlier, hopefully it's prompted him to grow up a bit too.

If the loss of immunity after having had Covid-19 leads to people being able to catch it again, I wonder if this will mean that, even if one is found, that a vaccine would evenrually wear off too. I'm not sure if acquiring immunity or being injected with immunity are the same thing as far as the body is concerned.

If so, people will need to be vaccinated every few months either to stay alive if they are vulnerable or to prevent mass sickness absence from work for those that wouldn't die, but nevertheless be incapacitated and all the problems that that would entail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 36043377)

Face coverings must be worn in shops and supermarkets in England from Friday 24 July, Boris Johnson has announced.

Enforcement will be carried out by police, not retail staff, and anyone who does not comply will face a fine of up to £100.

*Sigh* :td:

And now Face coverings from 24 july have to be worn in shops why not hairdressers, pubs, restaurants, offices, etc, etc?

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36043389)

And now Face coverings from 24 july have to be worn in shops why not hairdressers, pubs, restaurants, offices, etc, etc?

I can see a potential issue with wearing a face mask in a pub or a restaurant Den.....;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian (Post 36043390)

I can see a potential issue with wearing a face mask in a pub or a restaurant Den.....;)

l know that Julian ;) but you can understand the point l am making though.;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36043389)

And now Face coverings from 24 july have to be worn in shops why not hairdressers, pubs, restaurants, offices, etc, etc?

Just a headline reader as usual.

Quote:

Wearing a face covering in shops and supermarkets in England is to become mandatory from 24 July.

Those who fail to comply with the new rules will face a fine of up to £100, the government is to announce.

The move will bring England into line with Scotland and other major European nations like Spain, Italy and Germany.

Since mid-May, the public have been advised to wear coverings in enclosed public spaces, where they may encounter people they would not usually meet.

It has been compulsory on public transport since 15 June.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock is expected to set out the new guidance on face coverings on Tuesday.

Perhaps it may be worth waiting until Tuesday rather than spouting off now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36043393)

Just a headline reader as usual.

Perhaps it may be worth waiting until Tuesday rather than spouting off now.

On the BBC web site it dose say face masks will be compulsery in shops, fines of £100 if you do not wear a face mask in shops.

I do agree wait for the announcement later today

So much for a few weeks self-isolation.
Link

Quote:

An Argentine fishing boat that had been at sea for 35 days returned to land when some of its 61 crew showed symptoms of the new coronavirus, Tierra del Fuego Province's Health Ministry reported on Monday.
Reports later that evening from local outlets said that 57 of the crew members had tested positive for Covid-19.
...
The incident has attracted attention since prior to setting sail the 60 crew members had completed 14 days of mandatory quarantine in a hotel in Ushuaia, and before that they had been swabbed with a negative result, according to a statement from the Tierra del Fuego health portfolio, in the southern tip.

Isolated for 7 weeks in total.

There may turn out to be a simple explanation, but if those 57 had arrived back before showing any symptoms, it could've caused a large outbreak.

Contaminated ice that they came into contact with?

Sounds like the virus was bought aboard in the supplies before sailing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36043409)

Sounds like the virus was bought aboard in the supplies before sailing.

The theory goes that at room temperature, the virus "dies" after around 3 days. Frozen supplies may have been a source. I now gather larger fishing boats make their own ice on board.
The length of time before anybody showed any symptoms and that it all happened around the same time, suggests the initial exposure came late on in the voyage.

Don't know what the weather is like down there, but it is winter in the southern hemisphere and they are at the very southern tip of South America.

https://www.biotechniques.com/corona...-for-covid-19/

Quote:

However, new research from Johns Hopkins University (MD, USA) has found that the chance of these tests giving a false negative – stating no infection when the individual actually is infected – is greater than 1 in 5, at times being far higher. The study, which analyzed seven previously published studies that evaluated RT-PCR performance, calls into question the accuracy of the predictive value of such tests.

Publishing their results in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers stress the need for caution in interpreting any negative results of RT-PCR diagnostic tests, as many other factors, such as the timing of the test, appear to play a role in the accuracy of the results. The probability of a false negative COVID-19 test decreased from 100% on Day 1 of the infection to 67% on Day 4. This further decreased to 20% on Day 8, 3 days after a patient would first start to experience COVID-19 symptoms.

Day 8 appeared to be the optimal time for testing, as after this the probability of a false negative once again began to increase. A 21% probability on Day 9 increased to 66% if testing occurred on Day 21 of infection.

There are likely various reasons for the false negative results. In an interview with the Huffington Post UK, James Gill (University of Warwick, UK) stated he believed that sampling errors may play a part, and some testing centers may be swabbing incorrectly; “It’s a swab that requires some experience to do well, certainly without being uncomfortable,” Gill explained.

As shown in the recent study, timing is also a major factor as the virus moves around the body throughout the course of the infection. “The longer you have the condition, the virus migrates and it goes down into your lungs,” commented Gill. “So even though you’re coughing, you’ve got the fever, we might not be able to get the swab because it might not be there anymore. It might’ve gone down to the lungs. That’s one reason we can miss it.”

A similar study, published earlier this month in the BMJ, also highlighted the inaccuracies of PCR-based testing. Noting that a positive test should hold more weight than a negative one due to the test’s high specificity yet moderate sensitivity. The authors suggested that a single negative test should not be used to rule out infection – particularly in patients displaying symptoms of COVID-19.

When I took part in a Rhinovirus medication trial, you were swabbed twice a day for 10 days, with the swab being done by a doctor, as it requires quite precise placement. It was a very strange feeling, like someone was tickling/scratching inside your head (made your eyes water).

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...0&d=1594720640

Not really that relevant whether anybody was actually positive when going on board. They were isolated for 2 weeks before that. Plus there would've had to be a chain of infections from one person to another, and onto another, for it to emerge 4 weeks into the voyage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36043404)

So much for a few weeks self-isolation.
Link

Isolated for 7 weeks in total.

There may turn out to be a simple explanation, but if those 57 had arrived back before showing any symptoms, it could've caused a large outbreak.

Contaminated ice that they came into contact with?

The clue is in the term “self” isolation.

A bubble of 60 people isn’t self isolation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36043422)

The clue is in the term “self” isolation.

A bubble of 60 people isn’t self isolation.

Self-isolation doesn't mean just by yourself. They are currently self-isolating on the fishing boat. They were quarantined for 14 days in a hotel, before they set out. They were isolated from the general public for 7 weeks.