Re: Coronavirus
 

Your 2015 links states that up to 50 per day were being admitted to hospital.

Your 2018 link states that 421 patients were admitted to hospital with flu in the week ending 31st December 2017.

2019 link states 237 admissions in a week.

On Monday, 18th January 2021, 4034 patients were admitted that day with COVID.

50 a day (350 per week), 421 in a week, 237 in a week vs 4034 in a day...

Re: Coronavirus
 

The claim was the flu never overwhelmed the NHS. Those links quote NHS leaders claiming the NHS was being or about to be overwhelmed by the flu.

The degree of the overwhelming or capacity of the NHS at the time of the overwhelming can be debated.

In any event the claims of the NHS being overwhelmed by the flu in those links is not a fabrication, I’m just posting the links.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

As with anywhere they can reprioritise resource for a period of time. However that impacts on what we would consider 'non-critical' care.

In respect of Covid this would mean reprioritising all non-critical operations and care for months on end. The NHS doesn't have spare staff/capacity just hanging around waiting for a pandemic.

Overwhelmed is unfortunately a subjective phrase, but if we pin it down by any methodology going Covid is worse than flu, for longer than flu.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The pre-Covid Pandemic planning was based on a Flu type virus, which has since been shown as woefully short sighted. This included the massive rush to create the Nightingales as a solution, when they were not suitable for Covid-19 treatments. Let alone having any awareness of NHS staff shortages.

Re: Coronavirus
 

More info on the 30% more fatal claim.

Look who briefed Peston before official disclosure.

https://reaction.life/30-per-cent-mo...ervtag-member/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Actually you do of sorts


My dad was given a credit card sized card which had the vaccine type and batch number, and date of injection.


There is a space for writing the second vaccine information

Re: Coronavirus
 

How you present the figures matters.

3 extra deaths, up from 10 does indeed make 30%

I’m not a maths wizard but a more realistic metric would be 3 more deaths in a thousand that is only an increase of 0.3%.

Using the first method if it 1 person that dies in a million, and new strain killed 2 people per million the headline would be “ new variant 100% more deadly” .

I remain not scared.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They cannot decide if the new variant is more lethal, scientists are now arguing that it is or isn’t.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Professor Boris said it is more dangerous, he's the only scientist that matters. He knows his stuff.
..

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hancock is pushing it on sky news, he's wangled new variant into every sentence, must be topping 100 times, but has no info on it, Boris should make him minister for whataboutery.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s the weekly Sunday Scare’em routine. The new variant is lurking behind the bushes and is going to jump out and kill you if you leave the house.

Have you heard the radio ads? “If you’re on public transport or in the park, it like the people around you will be infected with coronavirus”........... really.

Keep ‘em scared, keep’em scared.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just ignore the 4000+ a day hospital admissions with COVID, and the 1200+ deaths a day - they’re just scare tactics...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Finally you’re getting it. .........

No, of course the numbers are real. Like I’ve said on here many times I don’t believe lockdowns are the answer.

But the government do, and the best way to control a population is to scare them into obedience.

The figures are what they are, but it is still at the end of the day for the vast majority a mild disease

Re: Coronavirus
 

Apologies - I forgot the <sarcasm> tags...

I wonder if the 4K+ plus people admitted every day lately realise they’re not really ill, just a propaganda tactic?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I just don’t understand your perspective on this. How is it that you’re failing to grasp that the government is taking population-scale decisions here - not because they think lockdown is the solution to your mild case of covid, but because at the population scale the reproduction rate we’re seeing means that at any one time there are now about as many serious covid cases as the NHS can handle. The NHS is routinely stretched by seasonal flu when it is operating normally (I.e. still doing regular cancer screenings, hip replacements and the rest). Today, it is stretched to the limit even after much of its normal operation has been surrendered to covid patient care.

If the government is trying to scare people into compliance, then that’s because people have lost the ability to modify their behaviour for the sake of their wider community, and can only be manipulated into something they think is in their personal interest. And that’s a really sad reflection of what we as a nation have become.

Re: Coronavirus
 

:tu:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Too right, people should be scared.

Scared of catching it and passing it on to someone whose immune system my not be able to cope and they end up seriously ill in hospital or worse, dead.

Taking precautions and lockdowns are to help stop the NHS being swamped rather than just making people stay home for the hell of it.

People that think its a hoax or that its the government trying to control us are just plain daft. I personally know people that have passed away covid. It's not nice at all. I certainly don't want to risk catching it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s not what I said

---------- Post added at 11:26 ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 ----------

Because I would prefer to be advised rationally.

Just be straight up about everything in a calm clear way.

I don’t like it when anyone let , alone the government, try and intimidate me and scare me with irrational propaganda.

The 30% more deadly variant being a prime example.

I’ve never said it is a hoax / conspiracy or anything like that - ever, and I have always adhered to the rules.

But I absolutely within my rights to question how this is being handled.

Re: Coronavirus
 

An excellent analysis of the situation. Some some people just don't get it and just think of themselves.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think most people do get it, but still don't care. They're more worried about their next holiday and personal wealth, than the health of those around them. Sad sign of the times.

If of course they themselves or a family member becomes seriously ill their attitude completely changes. Our PM is a case in point.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Exactly..

---------- Post added at 12:28 ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 ----------

Spot on analysis.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

If there’s more than 100 people in the park that’s true.

---------- Post added at 13:23 ---------- Previous post was at 13:18 ----------

Very worrying for NZ, but they’ve had a few examples of community transmission successfully stamped out before so I’m rooting for them.

Potentially false negative tests or simply a late onset of infection. It’s always been thought possible just unlikely as the vast majority are between by days 5-7.

I did read a theory on the “new variant” that it was more difficult to detect and that’s one hypothesis for greater spread - people who test negative continue their lives as normal. Don’t know if further analysis has been done.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Questioning the effectiveness of lockdowns is not selfish, it’s the opposite. Thinking of all the people who have and will lose their jobs, potentially their homes. Thinking of people stuck in tiny flats, people that are alone, kids at risk, the list goes on and on.

I’m lucky, I have a massive garden and live in a rural area, never went to the pub or cinema that often. lockdown hasn’t affected me at all. The only potential issue was with schooling and I qualify for essential worker status so that is now sorted.

So believe me, I am not thinking of myself I can ride out lockdowns just fine, but I don’t agree they are the answer.

---------- Post added at 13:46 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ----------

Well they don’t know that and it’s not an issue if everyone follows the guidance.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Depends on how big the park is.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why the best message is "act as if you have Covid-19"! Then at least you will be taking all the measure you personally can, to stop the spread.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Red herring. Even Sweden is seeing an economic impact, despite taking no meaningful restrictions for the first 6-9 months.

The idea that there’s a lot of businesses out there that would thrive with people voluntarily shielding, many continuing to work from home for their own safety is mistaken. Businesses are in trouble either way.

Went to two local parks this weekend. One where I grew up had more people in it than I’ve seen in my entire life. The other nearby had about 80 folk it it when I did a quick count. I’m pretty confident anyone spending even half an hour to an hour there would have shared the space with 100 different people.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm so lucky to live 5 minutes from a beach with huge open spaces and a country park on the back of the village.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Our local mountain rescue were out again yesterday. Not for the first time since the pandemic began, the rescued parties were met by the polis at the foot of the hill and were handed fines for breaching covid rules. I don’t know which is worse, that they thought trying to climb a snow-capped Scottish mountain without the appropriate kit was a clever idea, or that so many months into this they still thought the lockdown rules didn’t apply to them. And no, they weren’t local (nobody local to here would be stupid enough to try to stroll up it in Hi-Tecs and a cagoule in the middle of winter).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is it a “Red-Herring”?

Of course Sweden is seeing an economic impact, the whole globe is. The severity of the impact is what the question is.

https://www.reuters.com/article/swed...-idINL8N2IW3EU

They seem to be doing a bit better than those around them?

It’s also not about businesses “ thriving “ it about businesses and people “surviving”.

We’ll all be living in the city of Bezosigrad within the kingdom Bezosistan, which was formed when all non-grocery retail collapsed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You're pretty much misunderstanding capitalism if you think that businesses can take a 10-15% loss of revenue and still have a workable model. Fixed costs like rent continue, loans need repaid, business rates etc. Letting a couple of staff go and using a bit less gas and leccy isn't going to balance the books.

If we want to save retail we need to reform the tax system. Not let the pandemic go.

Letting the pandemic go with increased risks of new variants and greater transmission will only realise your nightmare of Bezos dominating further. If I'm taking a risk leaving the house it's going to be to go to the pub, not shopping.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’re mis-understanding the entrepreneurial skill and adaptability of the small/ medium businesses. 10-15% they can handle, 60-80-100% they can’t. You’re right about Tax/ business rates etc, that all needs to be addressed. But the small guys need footfall.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Skill and adaptability :D

Comedy gold. Either way it's not happening, ever. We've gone all in on the Oxford vaccine and Boris is committed to a lockdown to Easter.

Could see summer type easing similar to last year with the vaccine rollout ramping up significantly in the same time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Glad to see you find it funny and take pleasure in others losing their businesses and homes because they not even been given a chance to operate.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I take no such pleasure at all, I'm sure most will read your post as a plain misrepresentation of my stance which has been consistent throughout.

There's so much entrepreneurial spirit they are the ones who were pleading for 80% furlough not 67%. Bear in mind non-essential retail remained open in tier 3 - I don't see many High Street success stories from that period. Amazon on the other hand...

Re: Coronavirus
 

I believe he’s laughing at your comment, not small businesses

Re: Coronavirus
 

If so many businesses could take 10-15% hits on their sales someone with just as much entrepreneurial spirit would enter the market and reduce the price skimming off percentages from each and every small business in their field and becoming that profitable 85% model.

That’s literally how supply and demand works in competitive markets.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m very aware of that Sherlock......but as JFman is the master of putting his words into others mouths I thought I’d do the same

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think I'm as transparent to be rumbled within two posts though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed, it only takes one. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

No one was saying they can take that kind of hit for a sustained period of several years.

But in between lockdowns when there was trading with restrictions, I witnessed lots of innovation. The pandemic was predicted to last a year or two ( based on initial vaccine predictions).

My point being that by using their savings, taking grants, loans, hopefully help with tax/rates etc with reduced revenue many businesses could probably just about get through, but no revenue at all? That’s a much tougher prospect.

---------- Post added at 19:51 ---------- Previous post was at 19:50 ----------

Rumbled years ago mate.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I find the messaging from the Government about when we can expect this lockdown to end a bit weird.

The lockdown looks like it's working. The cases have been trending downwards (deaths, a lagging indicator, will still increase for a week or so) as have the predictions of the 'R' number and the ONS projections of how many people are infected.

In addition to the lockdown working the vaccinations are still speeding along with nearly 500,000 people getting a vaccinated a day.

By March we should see far fewer cases and a drop off in hospitalisations and deaths. That will also come at a time when the majority of the top four groups classified as most at risk have been vaccinated.

I understand they've been caught out before with optimistic projections/assumptions that backfired so I fully understand the reluctance to commit to a hard date but why not share with us the metrics they'll use to end this. Even rough ones.

Are we talking a reduction in cases and the R Number to the same level as the spring? Or are we talking about all four at risk groups being vaccinated + some % of what remains? A bit of both?

What is it?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I suspect the plan is to hold onto lockdown as long as possible (Easter, potentially later) at the same time as ramping up vaccination. I think they want this to be the last one - better to do this one for 4 months than for 3 and then end up having to increase restrictions all over again.

They probably want to get the most vulnerable groups onto their second doses.

While there's optimism about the vaccine against other variants I think they want to see that in the real world, which in lockdown conditions could take a while to become clear.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Was thinking over the weekend that an issue at the moment is that in the first lockdown the situation was novel, the weather was good and generally people thought that it was a brief intermission in normal life. Many folk got paid (and I know of a case because of the way it works got more money than working as prior years were good).

Now the weather is nasty, we see businesses folding, the days are darker (but lengthening) there is likely greater infection just due to time of year, more deaths maybe due to other respiratory illnesses around and morale is down which also affects how the body responds to disease.

Even the NZ model that they are fortunate that they can implement seems to have potential issues if you get false negatives. If the infected person remains asymptomatic they could spread things nicely before it's recognised.

I think the hope is that once the more vulnerable are vaccinated and that vaccine prevents infection (at best) or reduces symptoms to the "cold/flu" level then it becomes (to us) an endemic condition like cold/flu. Repeated infections even of variants would hopefully get to faster immune responses etc. Vaccinate where needed but generally it may work and hospitalisations are reduced down to "manageable".

Re: Coronavirus
 

EU vaccine farce: Eurocrats go to war with maker of Oxford jab – legal action threatened
BRUSSELS boss Ursula von der Leyen has clashed vaccine-maker AstraZeneca after it announced delays to the European Union's supply.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...-von-der-Leyen

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Possibly because supplies to the UK aren't under threat? The Oxford/AZ vaccine is made in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands but mostly in the UK. It appears the hold up is in the Belgian facility. It may be that this is where AZ anticipated fulfilling EU requirements from, and that may in turn have been a decision influenced by when the EU was likely to require its supply. Let's not forget to date the bungling European Medicines Agency has not even managed to issue approval for the vaccine.

Re: Coronavirus
 

While we're discussing EU provision there is this.

Spanish MEP Domenec Ruiz Devesa has started a petition calling on the European Commission to ensure that the EU flag is emblazoned across all coronavirus vaccine deliveries throughout Europe. In a letter to his fellow MEPs, the Spaniard writes: "You may have noticed that in most, if not all of the images available on vaccine delivery to Member States, the EU logo is wholly absent from all the logistics, including planes, trucks, boxes, etc.
This is inconsistent with the role played by the EU, whether in terms of vaccine authorization, funding for vaccine research, the set-up of central procurement, funding for delivery," he says, calling it "a major missed opportunity in terms of communication and social media."

Also here's his letter to Von der Leyden.

https://www.docdroid.net/wzzsgFd/let...vaccines-1-pdf

Re: Coronavirus
 

So putting the EU flag on things takes precedence over getting the vaccine to where its needed. :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's the bureaucracy that heals not the vaccine;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

The vaccines are made by private companies not the EU. So why should that horrible flag be on everything.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There's a report about to break in Germany claiming Astra Oxford vaccine is only 8% effective in over 65's

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s odd. If there wasn’t sufficient data to make that determination from the clinical trials, where is the data coming from now? Far too few people have had even one dose, and not for long enough. At best this can only be an inference from trial data the manufacturer itself has already said should not be used in that way.

Of course there’s absolutely no chance there’s any sour grapes in Germany over the way the UK has ignored (and thoroughly humiliated) the EU vaccination programme and is now implementing a comprehensive programme of its own, using a vaccine largely designed and manufactured in the UK.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Less than 2 weeks ago, the Germans were praising its effectiveness.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think it's constructive to try and point score here between nations. That approach fails anyway as all the companies concerned contain a wealth of international talent. Astra Zeneca is an Anglo-Swedish company headed up since 2012 by Pascal Soriot, a Frenchman.

---------- Post added at 21:22 ---------- Previous post was at 21:19 ----------

Has it been approved for use in Germany?

Re: Coronavirus
 

We haven’t approved or secured enough doses of the vaccine................so let’s discredit the vaccine, so our ineptitude looks more like oversight.

It may work short term, but if the vaccine works, it works. The rest of the world will prove them wrong.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Jan 14

Link

The UK ordered doses, long before the EU got its act together. First come, first served.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I am having an impossibly hard time believing that the UK’s refusal to join the EU procurement programme would not be being discussed at length in this thread right now, had the vaccine approval/supply situation been reversed. There was certainly attempted point scoring at the time that decision was made - Brexit ideology before people’s lives, etc etc etc. Der schuh ist now on the other fuss.

You’re making the tired old remainer error of assuming that criticism of the EU and the UK’s relationship to it can be boiled down to xenophobia. That’s not the case and continually having to rebut that tired old trope is getting very tedious.

The EU is a political construct that continues to extend and deepen its influence over its members thanks to the basic assumption that a concept they call “pooled sovereignty” is better than nation states acting for themselves. The UK has in this case been able to act in a more agile manner than the sclerotic EU bureaucracy to get vaccine approval and distribution going earlier and at a faster rate. It has leveraged long-standing policies that have continued to encourage world-leading research to happen here as well as high-tech manufacturing. Part of the package here is attracting the highly educated and talented individuals to come here to do their research and development and to work in these cutting-edge manufacturing processes - wherever in the world they come from.

I have no desire to turn the coronavirus thread into another Brexit/EU thread, but not do I have any intention of allowing such a glaring failure in EU policy to pass unregarded, not when the UK’s approach (possible only because we have left the EU) has so far been a world-leader.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The German Government has also now denied the 8% effectiveness story and I believe the newspaper has withdrawn the story.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN29V0ZC

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you can't blame Boris, blame the EU/Brexit. If it's not EU/Brexit it's Boris.

More seriously though is the Oxford vaccine's ability to be stored more "normally" means it's the better choice in countries without the high tech infrastructure that we in the West have. If the German report is founded then it will have less impact in the West where we can use the other vaccines on older folk and the Oxford one where it is effective.

---
On another line : how should centres use up spare vaccine that can't be stored when the booked appointments have been cleared? Not condoning queue jumping per se as reported friends using common link to get appointment but reports on media that stock of vaccine at end of day are being given to people further down priority where alternative is to bin it. (Assumes that stock isn't deliberately kept back)

Re: Coronavirus
 

From Twitter;

Ooof, that's embarrassing for some journalist!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you, Andrew, because it shows the bureaucratic EU in a bad light and it shines a light on nimble, post Brexit Britain.

The ‘international talent’ argument is irrelevant here. This is all about the fact that the EU’s inefficient procurement procedures have delayed the whole process. EU countries are all aware that Britain is streets ahead and it has not gone down well. They have yet even to approve the Astra Zeneca vaccine!

This is the first example of the benefits of Brexit, and it’s only January.

Having said that, I hope the problem at the Belgium operation is sorted out quickly. Lives are at stake here and so they need to get these problems resolved.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Surely a bit of good old fashioned shielding would do the trick wouldn't it?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Seems someone was confused by the numbers.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe they haven't approved the Astrazenica vaccine because they have concerns about it?

We had no option but to approve it because it's the only show in town. Even then we may not hit the herd immunity threshold with it. So I'd not count those chickens before they hatch. More lockdowns while we wait on more effective vaccines would be a sub-optimal outcome I'm sure you'd agree.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, but most of us just want to get back to normal, Grim.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I appreciate you’re just trying to promote robust debate but you’re veering into vaccine conspiracy territory here. “No option but to approve it because it’s the only show in town” could very easily be taken to mean there has been corner-cutting. There has been no evidence of this and neither has there been any suggestion of concerns over safety at the EMA. In any case, the Pfizer vaccine was approved in the UK first, when it was the only show in town. Ox/AZ came second. The delay at the EMA is down to the efficacy data, which as we all know was compromised by the half-dose error during trials which also suggested it is possible to drive the Ox/AZ vaccine’s efficacy well over 90%.

The UK regulator was satisfied that the vaccine is safe and while it did review the trial data it saw no reason there not to allow the vaccine to be used. Why the EMA feels it has to spend so much longer on it is anyone’s guess. I suspect it probably has more to do with the vendors and quantities the EU has purchased causing them to focus on approving other vaccines first (principally Pfizer, followed by Moderna), though even here, they haven’t exactly moved nimbly. Across the pond, the FDA has a long-established reputation for refusing to accept conclusions drawn from trial data as presented by drug companies and for conducting its own exhaustive reviews of raw data. Approving drugs always takes longer there as a result.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

My point by “the only show in town” is we don’t have sufficient vaccine orders for any other vaccine to have a widespread vaccination programme with any other.

At no point am I suggesting it’s unsafe however there’s a clear “emergency use” rationale for us to approve it while others with a more diverse set of orders do not.

I’d certainly be reluctant to claim victory in this race so early when the real world performance with 12 week gaps, and against mutant strains, is untested (I accept this is true of all vaccines).

While it may be possible to drive up, based on a subset of results, the Ox/At vaccine to 90% that’s not the basis on which we are delivering it now.

Emergency use can be issued where a regulator is satisfied it will have an effect better than doing nothing. Not necessarily that it’ll achieve herd immunity or equally perform to other products in the marketplace that you can’t buy anyway.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Most of us don’t want to catch and spread COVID, especially as the issues with Long COVID are coming more to the fore...

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's worth noting that the UK is ahead of most countries (I think 3rd in the world) for vaccine distribution. So props to the NHS and Boris.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m with you in 50% of that... ;)

Not sure what value BoJo added to the vaccine situation.

Re: Coronavirus
 

He's appointed a good person to head up the programme
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55115037

Re: Coronavirus
 

OK - 75% then... :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

We are well ahead of the EU.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...4&d=1611670246

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

We may or may not have enough vaccine to do the initial job the gov aren't giving much info away.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unlikely, because so far the Oxford-AstraZenica vaccine is the only truly versatile vaccine available, the EU is going to need a substantial amount of it eventually, and it is mostly made in the UK. If the EU were to put export controls on consignments we had already contracted and paid for, all they would achieve would be to find their supplies of Ox/AZ compromised by HMG defensively doing likewise. Ultimately, nobody wins.

I also think you need to stop fretting over lack of transparency. Vaccine production, distribution and storage is highly sensitive information. Excessive details of the timetable present a risk to public order in the event that unforeseen problems cause delays.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As we pass 100,000 deaths.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55757378

The distribution is interesting.


99% of deaths aged 45 or over

90% of deaths aged 65 or over

75% of deaths aged 75 or over

42% of deaths aged 85 or over

30% of all deaths within Care Homes.

All the data based on the rather loose definition of dying within 28days of a positive test, regardless of any other conditions the individual may have had.

Re: Coronavirus
 

ONS Figures are more accurate and include those who have died with CV-19 as a factor, regardless of how long it took them to die from 1st test/diagnosis.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I can answer that, no problems. The current COVID RT-PCR test looks for SARS-Cov2 RNA only. When you have a swab taken, the swab is put in to a solution full of nice ingredients which break down the virus including the proteins around it. This opens things up for testing and stabilises the RNA.

We are full of enzymes which happily break down RNA and this is a good thing. RNA is how we make proteins so you make RNA to make proteins and the enzymes which break down RNA are an 'off switch', stopping the protein manufacture. RNA in cells doesn't hand around long with a half life usually of minutes to hours. Again, this is a good thing. The mRNA vaccines have had their mRNA modified to slow down the rate they are broken down in the cell

Now, the virus could be inactive in that it can't get into cells but still be picked up by the COVID test. The big question is how long would virus hang around in the usual places for a test swab. The inside of the nose and back of throat are designed to trap and kill nasties so the environment is pretty harsh but it's certainly not impossible for some virus to hang around.

A big deal is made of the 'number of cycles' for a COVID test. The test makes copies of DNA from the SARS-Cov2 RNA, DNA being easier to handle. It's the DNA we are measuring during a test. Each cycle of making more DNA amplifies the amount present until you can measure it. However, the more cycles you have, the more chance of picking something up that isn't really there by mistake which could give you a higher false positive rate.

So yes, the current COVID test could pick up false signals from RNA from dead virus and if you push things too hard, you can get false positives from nothing. The unknown thing here is how long SARS-COV2 RNA will hang about in a throat or nose. the general feeling is not long.

You could try and culture virus from suspected COVID patients but this is hard and time consuming. It could a couple of weeks to get a result so at present, the RT-PCR test is the best we have

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s just as spurious.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Those age groups make up 1/3 of the U.K. population.

What are all these extra people dying of (80k+ YTD over the 5 year average, and the number of deaths registered in the UK in the week ending 15 January 2021 was 20,019, which was 4,347 higher than the five-year average), if COVID is not contributing to the deaths?

Re: Coronavirus
 

So in your world, when something goes wrong it’s Boris’s fault and when it goes right it’s to someone else’s credit.

No bias there in your thinking, then....

Re: Coronavirus
 

In what way?

---------- Post added at 17:41 ---------- Previous post was at 17:39 ----------

No - I’ve defended him on this in the past, when he was blamed for things beyond his control.

Your thinking that shows the bias in your thinking - seems to be "my Boris, tight or wrong!".

He’s in charge - he doesn’t like doing things that are unpopular, which has meant delays in lockdowns or other measures being implemented.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I haven’t said COVID did or didn’t contribute to those deaths. It will have done in the vast majority of cases.

But there will be % margin of error - we just don’t know what that is.

---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 18:04 ----------

Because there are inconsistencies in gathering the data and how the data is recorded.

The 100,000 figure is what we’ve got, but that actual number may be less and it quite possibly may be more.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...dandwales/2020

We may never know what the real total is.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I thought you said the data was spurious? (as in the ONS data was "just as spurious").

Spurious means "false or fake"...

On a COVID related (and slightly scary) note.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....20.20215863v1

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ok poor choice of words, I was more meaning inaccurate.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Odd that disproportionately more older people seem to have these spurious non-Covid related deaths and die within 28 days. Getting hit by a bus, etc.

It's almost as if non-Covid related deaths are a tiny, tiny, minority.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Its almost is if you are trolling, which would be bad for your future posting ability.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hopefully ex journalist, incompetence over something so serious is unforgivable

Re: Coronavirus
 

For those who like their detail, this makes an interesting read.
https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/20...nes-284349628/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

great Article.

I found this the most heartening statement

So the governments course of direction is 100% the correct thing to do, to ease the pressure on the NHS.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, just to reiterate - as far as AstraZeneca are concerned, the root of the delay in vaccine delivery to the EU lies in the fact it took the EU three months longer than the UK to seal a deal with AstraZeneca. Everything about the EU’s approach to its vaccination programme seems to take too long.