Re: Coronavirus
 

I want to know where all these conspiracy theorists think Jewish people are getting the time from? At some point you think their plate is a bit full wouldn't you?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Anecdotal evidence, Max. Yet despite this the numbers testing positive on a given day are trending up.

If random people were just getting tested, without symptoms, they’d be statistically more likely to test negative.

The reality is the virus is more prevalent in society. This will further increase demand for testing in winter as the second wave takes hold, and other ailments that cause similar symptoms spread.

If we lose control this ends one way. They better sort it, and fast.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Funny, I thought it was the Reptilians, using 5G.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Huawei.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So you're basically saying that I'm lying?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Crap, I just installed a Huawei router. The Chinese brain controlling waves must have set him off.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, that’s exactly not what anecdotal evidence is. What I’m saying is that because you know someone who has doesn’t mean that’s the norm across the entire country or that the sum total contributes significantly to the demand for tests.

I equally know, via social media, of people who got tests after being in pubs where there were positive tests. When the advice was to wait and see if symptoms materialised. Indeed, a test wouldn’t confirm that they wouldn’t go on to develop the virus anyway. Following the return of schools I know of entire families being sent for tests, on instruction of the school, and against NHS advice.

I’m sure there’s always been a percentage, I’m not convinced that is the reason for the current shortage.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You got that right.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Local council have sent out the latest COVID-19 infection rates in Leeds - 72.7 per 100,000, with 6.2% positive rate (According to criteria published by WHO in May, a positive rate of less than 5% is one indicator that the epidemic is under control in a country).

Re: Coronavirus
 

The infection rate as you post is 0.072% of local population..........ooooh.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeah, it's extremely high :rolleyes: let's get on with our lives eh, by all means, protect the very vulnerable and the older population, but it's now becoming ridiculous.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, it’s the new cases, and they have been doubling each week since three weeks ago...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s only low because of, and increasing despite, the restrictions in place. Open everything up and it goes through the roof, NHS overwhelmed, see Italy in February.

Unless of course we’ve hit herd immunity by accident - but if that was the case the test positivity rate would be falling and R wouldn’t be increasing.

I’m really not sure what the urgency is to test this, be wrong, cause unnecessary deaths and be in a second lockdown.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wonder who really is at fault, MP's who request increase in testing and approve budget, civil servants who are tasked to implement it, the companies/units who need to ramp up capacity, the engineers doing the tests. What's the betting someone somewhere is earning nicely from the situation and at each phase "difficulties" will mean slower response or more cost.
Do we really want the government to micromanange each stage and every aspect all the time?

---
Reporting groups of 7 or more - our archery club now has added signs to the effect that archery is an organised sport and that we can have bigger groups (with distancing), sad we need to.