Re: Coronavirus
 

Ifs, buts and maybes have generally been the cornerstones of all the Covid analysis up to now . .. go where the guesswork leads and we'll make further guesses when the data changes ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

More COVID patients go into ICU than get ventilated.

Such as our own Dear Leader
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52192604

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

But that was an extraordinary case, he went in as Bojo and came out as Tony Bliar with a blond wig on, amazing what a case of the snots can do;).

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's almost as if a highly infectious novel virus had happened, and people were having to work on the knowledge they had at the time, and review/change things when they discovered more...

---------- Post added at 12:12 ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 ----------

Your previous post... ;)

Also, A&E attendance (someone rocking up at A&E with Covid symptoms and being sent home with a packet of Paracetamol 4 hours later) is recorded separately from A&E admissions (someone not being able to breathe arriving by ambulance.), so would not count towards the published Admissions figures for COVID.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which is what I said, but you're using 'grown up' words ;) :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

...... Taken from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45783005

from 2018 where the "average" over a year on particular days hit that. So that is a proven statistic and not guess work.

I think numbers from 2018 before all this happened are valid as to volumes the NHS could handle pre-pandemic. In the 3 years since it may be more or less, I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers are actually lower at the moment due to people staying away from hospitals.

Fair enough.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s right, hospital admissions and deaths are the ones to watch. However, the NHS is not in danger of going under and so the Health Secretary Sajid Javid will not be announcing further measures at the 5pm briefing this afternoon.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And if you don't have an infection (for which the obvious signs are symptoms) then wearing a mask achieves nothing at all.


Wearing a mask is also less effective if it isn't worn properly, e.g. over the mouth and nose, or if it's taken off without being sanitised before being put back on, or if it's been touched or put on with dirty hands, or if it's been held around the chin, or if it's not made of sufficient material to stop the virus from going out of it.


Considering coronaviruses haven't changed, and are a particular area of expertise for Prof Whitty, why is it that at the start of the pandemic, both the CMO and both of his deputies, were all documented as saying that masks didn't really do a lot if you didn't have symptoms and weren't a worthwhile measure for general use (or terms to a similar effect) yet as soon as the politicians wanted to do it, the "science changed" and they were now saying the total opposite.

---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:58 ----------

As a fair number of MPs have said, effectively locking down for what is (at present) no more than seasonal winter NHS pressures, and because the NHS can't cope with its workload, is a bit of a slippery slope.


What next, we shut the country down because the hospitals can't do infection control as effectively as they should and can't control norovirus outbreaks?


The government is spot on not buckling in because the NHS asks for it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You may wish to lookup "asymptomatic"…

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...s-asymptomatic https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-00142-8

Science ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Another OB post for the history books.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, I know about it ;) hence saying the obvious signs were symptoms, not that only people with symptoms could have the virus.



But I don't think it's fully known yet how much asymptomatic people do spread it, considering that in reality, they aren't going to be doing much which would, compared to someone with the virus (i.e. they aren't going to be coughing, sneezing etc) and how much aerosol spread from simply breathing or talking is not understood yet particularly how this actually dissipates for a while.



In the earlier times of the pandemic they were saying that a lot of the younger age groups were getting covid but with no symptoms, this appears to be much less of an issue with the Delta variant as kids are actually getting signs.


It may not be perfect but in the vast majority of cases people who have been double-jabbed and been exposed to the virus don't get an infection. You can see that with the ONS data where school age kids are mainly getting it and there isn't really any marked increase in the people they are in contact with e.g. teachers, parents, other family members, which you would expect if immunity is waning, given that close contacts of a positive test are being recommended to get a PCR test, they too would register positive even with no symptoms.


But this is something I'd like to see more official detail on - whether people testing positive have symptoms or not, which would perhaps also help any leverage on people doing more LFTs or wearing face coverings if they were still seeing a high amount of double jabbed people testing positive with no symptoms.



However, we also have to consider the nature of a PCR test is ultimately flawed because someone testing positive for a virus isn't necessarily infectious. So your asymptomatic positive tests could well have had the virus in the samples but if their cells aren't replicating and emitting the virus then they aren't infectious and the virus fragment could have got into the sample another way. I recall reading there is now a saliva test which is actually able to detect transmissible covid infections rather than a person who simply has a covid fragment of mRNA in their throat/nose swab.


If we look at the current data, as well as a massive bias in school age kids, we're also seeing at the moment, the effects of the lab returning a large number of positive samples as negative, which is showing in the SW and Wales in particular where rates have gone up in comparison to the rest of the country which is more static (most authorities in Notts have been relatively constant in the 70-100 per day). It will probably take a few days for the effects of this transmission to show in the figures and to show in the effects of people now testing positive who are isolating where they weren't before and this in itself will probably drive these rates down.

Re: Coronavirus
 

From my post And

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2774707