Cable Forum
Page 68 of 86 « First 185864656667 68 6970717278 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

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)

BenMcr 26-07-2021 11:04
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36087470)
To my understanding, it's a percentage of people who have been fully vaccinated that are still able to catch and transmit, not all.
Found this about the Pfizer vaccine, although not sure which variant this is for
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20...nsmission.aspx
Quote:
These models estimated 80-88% vaccine effectiveness against susceptibility (VES), to COVID-19 infection, for the individuals who had received both doses of the vaccine. The vaccine's effectiveness against infectiousness (VEI) was found to be 41.3%. Additionally, the overall vaccine effectiveness against transmission (VET) was found to be 88.5%.
And I believe those stats are separate from the ability to reduce serious illness and death in the person vaccinated

mrmistoffelees 26-07-2021 11:07
Re: Coronavirus
 
SOURCE:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberth...tudy-suggests/

A full course of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was just 39% effective at preventing infections and 41% effective at preventing symptomatic infections caused by the Delta Covid-19 variant, according to Israel’s health ministry, down from early estimates of 64% two weeks ago.

The figures, based on data from an unspecified number of people between June 20 and July 17, are significantly lower than previous estimates of the vaccine’s efficacy against other variants, which initial clinical trials found to be 95%.

The Israel findings also conflict with several other studies assessing the vaccine’s performance against the Delta variant, which indicated only slightly diminished degrees of protection against infection and mild illness (between 80% and 90%), including peer reviewed research from Public Health England published Wednesday.

The vaccine still provides very high levels of protection against hospitalization (92%) and severe illness (91%) caused by the Delta variant, the ministry said.

In a statement, Pfizer and BioNTech noted that while real-world data from Israel show vaccine efficacy in preventing infection and symptomatic disease to decline six months post-vaccination, “efficacy in preventing serious illnesses remains high.”

pip08456 26-07-2021 11:09
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36087470)
To my understanding, it's a percentage of people who have been fully vaccinated that are still able to catch and transmit, not all.
You are equating a vaccinated person who catches it with a person who is vaccinated who catches it being able to transmit it. They are two very different things.

You could have one who catches it and doesn't transmit and another who can. It depends on the viral load and the immunity response which will be different in everyone.

BTW, Carry on cowering.

mrmistoffelees 26-07-2021 11:13
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36087475)
You are equating a vaccinated person who catches it with a person who is vaccinated who catches it being able to transmit it. They are two very different things.

You could have one who catches it and doesn't transmit and another who can. It depends on the viral load and the immunity response which will be different in everyone.
I'm not, I'm saying that some people who have been vaccinated will not catch the disease in reply to Carths comment.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Carth 26-07-2021 11:14
Re: Coronavirus
 
Interesting footnote in the above link by BenMcr

Quote:
*Important Notice

medRxiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and, therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or treated as established information.
I'd still be of the opinion that anyone vaccinated can still catch it . . whether that's a 90% chance or a 0.1% chance ;)

Chris 26-07-2021 11:16
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36087474)
SOURCE:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberth...tudy-suggests/

A full course of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was just 39% effective at preventing infections and 41% effective at preventing symptomatic infections caused by the Delta Covid-19 variant, according to Israel’s health ministry, down from early estimates of 64% two weeks ago.

The figures, based on data from an unspecified number of people between June 20 and July 17, are significantly lower than previous estimates of the vaccine’s efficacy against other variants, which initial clinical trials found to be 95%.

The Israel findings also conflict with several other studies assessing the vaccine’s performance against the Delta variant, which indicated only slightly diminished degrees of protection against infection and mild illness (between 80% and 90%), including peer reviewed research from Public Health England published Wednesday.

The vaccine still provides very high levels of protection against hospitalization (92%) and severe illness (91%) caused by the Delta variant, the ministry said.

In a statement, Pfizer and BioNTech noted that while real-world data from Israel show vaccine efficacy in preventing infection and symptomatic disease to decline six months post-vaccination, “efficacy in preventing serious illnesses remains high.”
An interesting set of results from Israel. A big potential difference between the patients in the Israeli study and those surveyed by PHE is that in Israel the entire population has been jabbed with Pfizer, but on the recommended 21 day dose interval. In England, generally only vulnerable groups (elderly and others with urgent need) received Pfizer, until under 40s started getting vaccinated within the last couple of months. Additionally, in England the second dose was given on a 12 week interval (those who have had Pfizer more recently have had an 8 week interval).

I’m sure further research will be done to see what role the different demographics and dosage intervals might have played here, however to me this looks like tantalising evidence that the extended interval between doses may lead to a marked imporovement in vaccine performance.

Mick 26-07-2021 12:18
Re: Coronavirus
 
The notion that the majority of the public, supports “masks” in public spaces is a pile of doggies doo doo ��.

Three times in last week been to Tesco’s and there was more people not wearing masks, than there was wearing them.

tweetiepooh 26-07-2021 12:33
Re: Coronavirus
 
Went to Costco Friday (I have executive membership so get in with trade early).


Maybe 70% staff on floor had masks.
During the trade/executive period say 80% customers had masks. When opened to general members this dropped to 60% or less and observed some customers grouping.


In Waitrose most customers had masks (probably over 90%).


I will wear a mask in these situations because I'm asked nicely to and because it's helpful.


At church we have areas for those more nervous and wanting to keep more separate and other areas for those wanting to be more free, meet up, etc. We sing and for those that want to hug that's allowed to. Nice to be together after 16 months but from Friday it's isolation for us as wife is going into have op on Monday and the rules say isolation after Covid test.

OLD BOY 26-07-2021 13:12
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36087445)
India disproved your theory. The virus mutated into a more contagious variant and people became re-infected.
How did India disprove my ‘theory’? Yes, the more transmissions, the more variants, but my point was that lockdowns only delay transmission.

Lockdowns only work if a solution is available but it takes time to implement (eg vaccine distribution). Australia appears to be in no hurry to vaccinate its population.

Hugh 26-07-2021 13:15
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36087461)
And what were the odds on that? Get a life FFS.
You mean the odds on that thing that actually happened?

OLD BOY 26-07-2021 13:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36087457)
But you have consistently, and persistently, been against lockdowns in the UK because of this "logic".

But in reality, because we locked down, we delayed the infections enough to get working vaccines, which have avoided/prevented greater numbers of deaths, infections, and hospitalisations in the UK.
Not quite, Hugh. I resisted the first lockdown because at that time, we had no defence against it and there was great pessimism about ever getting a vaccine. The point was made that scientists had been working on this for decades but no effective vaccine had been found. In those circumstances, lockdowns would simply ruin the economy without preventing deaths. Mortality is simply spread over a longer period.

There are some, even today, who think lockdowns will actually get rid of the virus. They don’t.

My position on this changed when, to everyone’s astonishment, the scientists actually came up with a vaccine, and that changed everything. So I went along with the lockdown idea for a while, until the immunisation programme was well under way. However, I was of the strong opinion that all measures needed to be relaxed by 1 April, given that all the vulnerable groups had been vaccinated by then and further restrictions would continue to cripple the economy.

Even now, people are unwilling to cast aside their masks and want nightclubs shut down again despite falling numbers and the school summer holidays getting underway. Some are still arguing for another lockdown and think there will be a winter Covid crisis despite all common sense dictating that the opposite will happen.

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36087462)
Don't, this gives credence to OB's theory that the quantity of people infected would remain the same, only the time period over which they became infected would change. Which, is of course, utter gibberish.
No, it’s not. How do lockdowns do anything but delay infections?

1andrew1 26-07-2021 13:31
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36087485)
How did India disprove my ‘theory’? Yes, the more transmissions, the more variants, but my point was that lockdowns only delay transmission.

Lockdowns only work if a solution is available but it takes time to implement (eg vaccine distribution). Australia appears to be in no hurry to vaccinate its population.
Pleased that you agree lockdowns work.

Agree that Australia needs to vaccinate its population.

OLD BOY 26-07-2021 13:35
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36087489)
Pleased that you agree lockdowns work.

Agree that Australia needs to vaccinate its population.
I do not disagree that they delay infections and I never have done. My consistent point throughout has been that they do not prevent them unless you have a plan to implement which takes time to rollout to prevent such infection.

mrmistoffelees 26-07-2021 13:39
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36087487)
Not quite, Hugh. I resisted the first lockdown because at that time, we had no defence against it and there was great pessimism about ever getting a vaccine. The point was made that scientists had been working on this for decades but no effective vaccine had been found. In those circumstances, lockdowns would simply ruin the economy without preventing deaths. Mortality is simply spread over a longer period.

There are some, even today, who think lockdowns will actually get rid of the virus. They don’t.

My position on this changed when, to everyone’s astonishment, the scientists actually came up with a vaccine, and that changed everything. So I went along with the lockdown idea for a while, until the immunisation programme was well under way. However, I was of the strong opinion that all measures needed to be relaxed by 1 April, given that all the vulnerable groups had been vaccinated by then and further restrictions would continue to cripple the economy.

Even now, people are unwilling to cast aside their masks and want nightclubs shut down again despite falling numbers and the school summer holidays getting underway. Some are still arguing for another lockdown and think there will be a winter Covid crisis despite all common sense dictating that the opposite will happen.

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------



No, it’s not. How do lockdowns do anything but delay infections?
Because you're changing people's behaviours and how they can interact, person A catches virus but doesn't go to work (ie a restaurant) because it's shut, they therefore don't have a significant chance of passing the virus onto colleagues B,C & D and onto customers E-Z


It's called chains of transmission.

Sephiroth 26-07-2021 13:40
Re: Coronavirus
 
OB is absolutely right in his explanation of the early days.

mrmistoffelees 26-07-2021 13:50
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36087493)
OB is absolutely right in his explanation of the early days.
No, he's not, allowing the virus to run riot from day one would have done significantly more damage to the economy than lockdowns ever have. We also would not have a health system anymore.

the belief that the same amount of people would be infected & that we would experience the same levels of hospitalizations & deaths regardless of iwe locked down or not, is at best dumb ignorance and at worst a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation.

Chris 26-07-2021 14:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36087493)
OB is absolutely right in his explanation of the early days.
No he isn’t. Scientists have not been working on a vaccine for Covid-19 for “decades”. It’s a novel virus first described in 2019. The clue’s in the name. A great many people with relevant expertise stated early on that if a viable candidate could be prepared, changing the usual testing and approval regimes could significantly accelerate its availability. Some of those working on the cutting edge of vaccine design were confident that they could produce candidate vaccines quickly. Oxford university had its candidate ready for human trials on 23 April 2020, having received a complete copy of the virus genome on 11 January. This is because scientists learned how to combat coronaviruses during the earlier SARS and Mers outbreaks.

There was no point, at the outset of the first lockdown, when it was reasonable to assume a decade-long wait for a vaccine, quite regardless of how long any other vaccine in history has taken to design.

If you want to know how the Oxford-AsraZeneca vaccine was made and just how it was able to be formulated so quickly, read here: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n86

Or here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55041371

Mick 26-07-2021 15:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36087495)
No, he's not, allowing the virus to run riot from day one would have done significantly more damage to the economy than lockdowns ever have. We also would not have a health system anymore.

the belief that the same amount of people would be infected & that we would experience the same levels of hospitalizations & deaths regardless of iwe locked down or not, is at best dumb ignorance and at worst a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation.
What makes you think we have a good healthcare system now and I should know that this isn’t the case as I work in it?

mrmistoffelees 26-07-2021 15:58
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36087500)
What makes you think we have a good healthcare system now and I should know that this isn’t the case as I work in it?
I'm not saying that we don't have significant issues within the NHS Mick, I'm saying without locking down last year (Apr) we would in my opinion have caused the NHS to collapse which subsequently would have lead onto even more cases,hospitalizations & deaths than we've already sustained.

TheDaddy 26-07-2021 15:58
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36087500)
What makes you think we have a good healthcare system now and I should know that this isn’t the case as I work in it?
Did he say it was good or that we still have one?

OLD BOY 26-07-2021 16:50
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36087492)
Because you're changing people's behaviours and how they can interact, person A catches virus but doesn't go to work (ie a restaurant) because it's shut, they therefore don't have a significant chance of passing the virus onto colleagues B,C & D and onto customers E-Z


It's called chains of transmission.
Absolutely.

Now let's go to the next stage and examine what happens when the lockdown ends.

---------- Post added at 16:50 ---------- Previous post was at 16:46 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36087495)
No, he's not, allowing the virus to run riot from day one would have done significantly more damage to the economy than lockdowns ever have. We also would not have a health system anymore.

the belief that the same amount of people would be infected & that we would experience the same levels of hospitalizations & deaths regardless of iwe locked down or not, is at best dumb ignorance and at worst a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation.
Where are you coming from?!!

Yes, the lockdowns were imposed to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. But where do you get the idea that when the lockdown ends, it doesn't all start up again? Did you not notice the second wave? Or the third...

I think the scientists are all agreed that lockdowns delay, rather than prevent transmission.

Sephiroth 26-07-2021 16:51
Re: Coronavirus
 
Again - OB is correct.

OLD BOY 26-07-2021 16:56
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36087497)
No he isn’t. Scientists have not been working on a vaccine for Covid-19 for “decades”. It’s a novel virus first described in 2019. The clue’s in the name. A great many people with relevant expertise stated early on that if a viable candidate could be prepared, changing the usual testing and approval regimes could significantly accelerate its availability. Some of those working on the cutting edge of vaccine design were confident that they could produce candidate vaccines quickly. Oxford university had its candidate ready for human trials on 23 April 2020, having received a complete copy of the virus genome on 11 January. This is because scientists learned how to combat coronaviruses during the earlier SARS and Mers outbreaks.

There was no point, at the outset of the first lockdown, when it was reasonable to assume a decade-long wait for a vaccine, quite regardless of how long any other vaccine in history has taken to design.

If you want to know how the Oxford-AsraZeneca vaccine was made and just how it was able to be formulated so quickly, read here: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n86

Or here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55041371
Chris, when I said we were working on an inoculation for decades, I was referring to coronaviruses, not specifically COVID-19.

And is all very well being wise after the event, but there was no confidence that we'd have an effective vaccine in the foreseeable future. It was a hope, that was all.

---------- Post added at 16:56 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36087501)
I'm not saying that we don't have significant issues within the NHS Mick, I'm saying without locking down last year (Apr) we would in my opinion have caused the NHS to collapse which subsequently would have lead onto even more cases,hospitalizations & deaths than we've already sustained.
All those Nightingale hospitals seem to have been made available for nothing as we decided to have an enjoyable lockdown instead.

1andrew1 26-07-2021 16:57
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36087505)
Again - OB is correct.
Are you being mischievous, Seph? ;)

OLD BOY 26-07-2021 17:01
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36087508)
Are you being mischievous, Seph? ;)
Where was I not correct, then?

Sephiroth 26-07-2021 17:12
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36087508)
Are you being mischievous, Seph? ;)
No, Andrw. OB is right. The early days mantra was "save the NHS" which had a corollary "Save Lives". His central point is that at the time of the first lockdown, the Guvmin did not know how quickly a vaccine could be produced. In other words, they were putting us into a potentially bottomless pit and killing the economy at the same time. Once a vaccine was on the cards, then the Guvmin could act with certainty.

1andrew1 26-07-2021 17:18
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36087511)
No, Andrw. OB is right. The early days mantra was "save the NHS" which had a corollary "Save Lives". His central point is that at the time of the first lockdown, the Guvmin did not know how quickly a vaccine could be produced. In other words, they were putting us into a potentially bottomless pit and killing the economy at the same time. Once a vaccine was on the cards, then the Guvmin could act with certainty.
Chris puts that argument to bed quite neatly here and even reads it a bed time story. :)

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=6717

mrmistoffelees 26-07-2021 17:26
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36087503)
Absolutely.

Now let's go to the next stage and examine what happens when the lockdown ends.

---------- Post added at 16:50 ---------- Previous post was at 16:46 ----------



Where are you coming from?!!

Yes, the lockdowns were imposed to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. But where do you get the idea that when the lockdown ends, it doesn't all start up again? Did you not notice the second wave? Or the third...

I think the scientists are all agreed that lockdowns delay, rather than prevent transmission.
I'm coming from the point that not everyone is predetermined to get the virus, lockdowns have changed the environment we live in and also people's behaviours.

what you're suggesting is that even if you were nearly involved in a car crash it doesn't matter, because you'll be in one eventually.

---------- Post added at 17:26 ---------- Previous post was at 17:25 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36087506)
Chris, when I said we were working on an inoculation for decades, I was referring to coronaviruses, not specifically COVID-19.

And is all very well being wise after the event, but there was no confidence that we'd have an effective vaccine in the foreseeable future. It was a hope, that was all.

---------- Post added at 16:56 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------



All those Nightingale hospitals seem to have been made available for nothing as we decided to have an enjoyable lockdown instead.
I don't disagree we had fantastic nightingale hospitals.

Shame we didn't have the required personnel to staff them....

Chris 26-07-2021 19:35
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36087506)
Chris, when I said we were working on an inoculation for decades, I was referring to coronaviruses, not specifically COVID-19.

And is all very well being wise after the event, but there was no confidence that we'd have an effective vaccine in the foreseeable future. It was a hope, that was all.
Incorrect - as you would know if you bothered to read either of the links I provided. Immunologists were confident they could produce a vaccine quickly because they knew coronaviruses’ vulnerability is their spike protein. It requires this in order to infect a host; this is also something that can be programmed into a vaccine relatively easily.

Earlier you inferred that decades of research into coronaviruses meant the production of a specific covid-19 vaccine would be a slow process. In fact, that research made it a rapid process - and the rapidity with which a vaccine could be produced was indicated by Oxford and others at a very early stage. Sorry but your argument simply doesn’t hold water.

nomadking 26-07-2021 19:43
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36087448)
I do agree that Australia should have got its vaccination plan together as it can't cut itself off forever.
Australia's problem is that they didn't cut themselves completely.
Link
Quote:
Australia will halve the number of international arrivals it accepts after Covid outbreaks put half the population in lockdown this week.
The country's strict border rules have only allowed Australians and people with exemptions to enter.
...
Virus leaks from hotel quarantine - which is mandatory for all arrivals - have been the source of numerous outbreaks across the country.
...
The country has recorded about 250 cases, with most tied to a cluster in Sydney, its largest city.
The outbreak there stemmed from an unvaccinated driver who transported international arrivals, and the virus then spread in the community.
250 cases, just from one person.

Taf 26-07-2021 19:55
Re: Coronavirus
 
2 Attachment(s)
The daily case numbers, right from the start, suffered dips and rises on a 7-day basis due to the way each area subjected its figures.

Then this last week, this happened. An almost perfect descending graph line.

nomadking 26-07-2021 20:32
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf (Post 36087521)
The daily case numbers, right from the start, suffered dips and rises on a 7-day basis due to the way each area subjected its figures.

Then this last week, this happened. An almost perfect descending graph line.
Too perfect, it's almost as if a large section of the population was no longer being routinely tested, ie schoolkids.

Damien 26-07-2021 21:05
Re: Coronavirus
 
Testing numbers seem to be holding up according to the dashboard.

Hugh 26-07-2021 21:42
Re: Coronavirus
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36087531)
Testing numbers seem to be holding up according to the dashboard.
Looks as if the testing numbers are reducing…

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/testing

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...5&d=1627332124

Pierre 26-07-2021 23:22
Re: Coronavirus
 
Since restrictions were lifted, infections have declined………….

I’m sure there are lots of other underlying reasons, but imagine if it was the other way around…………how that would be reported!

Paul 27-07-2021 00:12
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36087533)
Since restrictions were lifted, infections have declined………….
Project fear is still running full pace though.

You should see the ridiculous email I got today about "returning to the office".

Its like they still think its the Jan 2021 2nd wave, and its a deadly nerve toxin that will kill you on contact. :rolleyes:

jonbxx 27-07-2021 09:36
Re: Coronavirus
 
The case numbers dropping seems to be great news but the raw numbers should be treated with a little caution because;
  1. There is a big question on who is being tested and why. Schoolkids tests in England have suddenly dropped off the radar. If positivity is high in the 11-18 group, we are not seeing that group any more
  2. Is everyone who has potential COVID symptoms being tested and are people more or less likely to be tested in the run up to the summer period?
  3. Are risk averse people more likely to be tested than, for example, people who would happily put a flare where the sun doesn't shine?

Testing numbers on their own give a useful guide to where things are going but the data can be skewed easily if you don't look deeper into things. The ONS surveys are probably more reliable as they take in to account the population as a whole rather than those who actively get tested alone.

I hope the drop in cases is reflected in the overall real positive rate but I am not sure the daily reported case numbers are the clearest indicator

Carth 27-07-2021 10:10
Re: Coronavirus
 
I don't think there is a clear indicator of anything regarding Covid-19.

Testing figures include positive, negative, and void results, which IMO just tells you someone is making money from the very large amount of kits used.

Positive cases . . .
Quote:
Number of people with at least one positive COVID-19 test result, either lab-reported or rapid lateral flow test (England only), by specimen date.
Hospitalised figures doesn't tell you if they were in hospital 8 hours or 8 days.

Deaths from/with/28days is a figure that's subject to variables around dates, and has always been contentious.

Question: If somebody gets a mild Covid infection, or is asymptomatic, do they then have antibodies similar to being vaccinated? At 25k cases a day that could be a lot of needles not needed. :shrug:

Taf 27-07-2021 10:37
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 36087543)
Schoolkids tests in England have suddenly dropped off the radar.
It's the school holidays?

tweetiepooh 27-07-2021 10:49
Re: Coronavirus
 
Can't find the reference as just glanced through the articles but was reading that a fair percentage of those testing positive for CV in hospital likely contracted it in hospital or at least were not attending because of CV symptoms.


The stats are all over the place and there so many variables changing all at once it's a wonder anyone can get much from it other than those who can pick up on "some trend" that backs up their agenda.

spiderplant 27-07-2021 10:55
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36087546)
Hospitalised figures doesn't tell you if they were in hospital 8 hours or 8 days.
They publish both admissions and numbers in hospital. It's currently:

Patients admitted 922
Patients in hospital 5,238

So on average people are staying in 5.6 days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36087546)
Question: If somebody gets a mild Covid infection, or is asymptomatic, do they then have antibodies similar to being vaccinated? At 25k cases a day that could be a lot of needles not needed. :shrug:
Infection provides some protection, but vaccination provides more. Infection+vaccination is better still.

Besides, the cost of testing for antibodies would exceed the cost of vaccinating regardless. And you'd still need to vaccinate all the people who tested negative for antibodies.

jonbxx 27-07-2021 10:57
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf (Post 36087551)
It's the school holidays?
Absolutely. I have 2 secondary school age kids who definitely aren't missing their twice weekly testing. That said, I am not missing logging the tests either - the website for result logging is a mess and changes every few days...

heero_yuy 27-07-2021 11:09
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36087554)
Can't find the reference as just glanced through the articles but was reading that a fair percentage of those testing positive for CV in hospital likely contracted it in hospital or at least were not attending because of CV symptoms.
According to The Sun it's some "leaked" data:

Quote:
Quote from The Sun: More than half of covid hospitalisations are patients who tested positive after they were admitted, it has been reported.

Leaked data suggests the majority of patients classed as being hospitalised with Covid-19 were initially admitted for different ailments.

Figures show patients were eventually diagnosed with Covid through routine testing that is required for everyone admitted to the hospital.

The data, covering all NHS trusts in England, suggests that as of last Thursday, just 44 per cent of Covid patients had tested positive by the time they were admitted, the Telegraph reports.

The majority of cases were not detected until the standard Covid tests were carried out.

Fifty six per cent of Covid hospitalisations fell into this category, the data suggests.

The NHS has been told to provide "a breakdown of the current stock of Covid patients" by separating those in hospital for the virus and those for other reasons, the Telegraph reports.
How much can be read into this data is the question: Did the patients already have a covid infection before they were admitted or did they catch it in hospital?

Seems the Telegraph have the story but that's paywalled.

tweetiepooh 27-07-2021 11:27
Re: Coronavirus
 
What it does show is that some people in hospital that have Covid didn't attend hospital for Covid. It is possible that a number have contracted Covid after admittance.

Carth 27-07-2021 11:52
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36087556)
They publish both admissions and numbers in hospital. It's currently:

Patients admitted 922
Patients in hospital 5,238

So on average people are staying in 5.6 days.
I think you've just proved my point by taking the average, it doesn't address the question of - for example - how many are in & out within 24 hours after a quick basic checkup & treatment?

spiderplant 27-07-2021 12:33
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36087560)
Seems the Telegraph have the story but that's paywalled.
You can read most of it via the BBC's front page review at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-57978946

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36087565)
I think you've just proved my point by taking the average, it doesn't address the question of - for example - how many are in & out within 24 hours after a quick basic checkup & treatment?
People turned away from A&E and told to take paracetamol won't be counted as admissions.

Carth 27-07-2021 12:41
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36087567)
People turned away from A&E and told to take paracetamol won't be counted as admissions.

Probably won't bother self isolating either then :D

The good news is that potentially all of those 300,000 'pinged' 10 days ago will be back at work tomorrow . . . and those figures should roll on every day now so panic over ;)

jfman 27-07-2021 12:50
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36087560)
According to The Sun it's some "leaked" data:

How much can be read into this data is the question: Did the patients already have a covid infection before they were admitted or did they catch it in hospital?

Seems the Telegraph have the story but that's paywalled.
I saw this last night something like 43% tested positive within 48 hours of being admitted - in other words likely had Covid prior to being admitted due to the incubation period. They might not have been in for Covid related reasons but they almost certainly came in with Covid.

OLD BOY 27-07-2021 12:51
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36087560)
According to The Sun it's some "leaked" data:



How much can be read into this data is the question: Did the patients already have a covid infection before they were admitted or did they catch it in hospital?

Seems the Telegraph have the story but that's paywalled.
From the Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ive-admission/

Quote:
More than half of Covid hospitalisations are patients who only tested positive after admission, leaked data reveal.

The figures suggest vast numbers are being classed as hospitalised by Covid when they were admitted with other ailments, with the virus picked up by routine testing.

Experts said it meant the national statistics, published daily on the government website and frequently referred to by ministers, may far overstate the levels of pressures on the NHS.

The leaked data – covering all NHS trusts in England – show that, as of last Thursday, just 44 per cent of patients classed as being hospitalised with Covid had tested positive by the time they were admitted.

The majority of cases were not detected until patients underwent standard Covid tests, carried out on everyone admitted to hospital for any reason.

Overall, 56 per cent of Covid hospitalisations fell into this category, the data, seen by The Telegraph, show.

Crucially, this group does not distinguish between those admitted because of severe illness, later found to be caused by the virus, and those in hospital for different reasons who might otherwise never have known that they had picked it up.
Mod Edit - link supplied, and original post quote reduced in size to comply with "Fair Use" guidelines.

(Posting the whole article does not comply with "Fair Use")

1andrew1 27-07-2021 12:52
Re: Coronavirus
 
We need to help ensure the rest of the world is vaccinated to prevent more variants emerging.

OLD BOY 27-07-2021 12:58
Re: Coronavirus
 
I believe that is the plan, Andrew.

papa smurf 27-07-2021 13:05
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36087571)
We need to help ensure the rest of the world is vaccinated to prevent more variants emerging.
What will we threaten them with if they don't want the vaccine :shrug:

Carth 27-07-2021 13:06
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36087571)
We need to help ensure the rest of the world is vaccinated to prevent more variants emerging.
Where would you start? India, The middle East, USA, South America, Australia?

1andrew1 27-07-2021 13:20
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36087574)
Where would you start? India, The middle East, USA, South America, Australia?
Probably India. US is pretty sorted out except for its refuseniks. Australia will hopefully come round but has a relatively small population. Middle East and South America are variable.

jfman 27-07-2021 13:23
Re: Coronavirus
 
If ONS prevalence surveys have less than 2% of the population having Covid at any given time it’s clear misrepresentation by the Telegraph to imply large numbers of people are going into hospital for non-Covid related reasons then catching Covid.

Hugh 27-07-2021 13:35
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36087576)
If ONS prevalence surveys have less than 2% of the population having Covid at any given time it’s clear misrepresentation by the Telegraph to imply large numbers of people are going into hospital for non-Covid related reasons then catching Covid.
Quote:
An NHS spokesman said: "Many patients are admitted to hospital because of their Covid symptoms and complications, which are then confirmed with a post-admission Covid test, and for others they may initially be presymptomatic or asymptomatic."
"suggest/suggested" in that article was used deliberately, hoping that readers would interpret it as “probable", rather than "something to consider"… :dozey:

jfman 27-07-2021 14:20
Re: Coronavirus
 
Well it ticked a lot of boxes on the bullshit bingo card for me. ;)

Comedy Carl Hengehan, Telegraph, Graham Brady.

Chris 27-07-2021 14:56
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36087582)
Well it ticked a lot of boxes on the bullshit bingo card for me. ;)

Comedy Carl Hengehan, Telegraph, Graham Brady.
Not necessarily catching covid in hospital, but quite possibly not suffering badly enough with covid to be hospitalised by it. It looks like asymptotic or mildly symptomatic people attending because of other illnesses or accidents are being recorded as if they are in hospital because of covid, resulting in an over-reporting of the hospitalisation rate in the present phase of the pandemic. I’m not convinced they’re seriously suggesting it’s a hospital acquired infection. The incubation period is AFAIK too long for that to be possible in many cases.

To be honest I can understand why HMG may be prepared to tolerate over-reporting at this point. I’m sure you’d be at the front of the queue handing out rotten fruit to chuck at them if there was even a whiff of under-reporting in the data. El Gov is well aware that there is going to be a public enquiry after all this and while it might not report until after the 2024 election, it will most likely compile and publish far more solid statistics well before then. It won’t do their electoral prospects any harm at all if the headlines are all about how it was never as bad as it seemed at the time.

Carth 27-07-2021 15:25
Re: Coronavirus
 
I think the phrase "never as bad as it seemed" could well be trotted out eventually, but only by those who 'luckily' don't live in large cities and/or areas that had bad outbreaks.

Although there have been deaths and serious illness in my locale, it seems to have given a wide berth to family, friends and acquaintances.

In larger more populated areas it has sadly been an absolute nightmare for many.

jfman 27-07-2021 15:39
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36087587)
Not necessarily catching covid in hospital, but quite possibly not suffering badly enough with covid to be hospitalised by it. It looks like asymptotic or mildly symptomatic people attending because of other illnesses or accidents are being recorded as if they are in hospital because of covid, resulting in an over-reporting of the hospitalisation rate in the present phase of the pandemic. I’m not convinced they’re seriously suggesting it’s a hospital acquired infection. The incubation period is AFAIK too long for that to be possible in many cases.
The “over-reporting” would be permanent in all phases of the pandemic based on prevalence within society. It’s not unique to now.

Of course redefining what we count as a covid case at this stage might be beneficial to a Government seeking positive headlines by changing the figures so they cease to be comparable, just as it is to all the Heneghan’s of the world who have sought to downplay the pandemic from the very beginning.

Quote:
To be honest I can understand why HMG may be prepared to tolerate over-reporting at this point. I’m sure you’d be at the front of the queue handing out rotten fruit to chuck at them if there was even a whiff of under-reporting in the data. El Gov is well aware that there is going to be a public enquiry after all this and while it might not report until after the 2024 election, it will most likely compile and publish far more solid statistics well before then. It won’t do their electoral prospects any harm at all if the headlines are all about how it was never as bad as it seemed at the time.
Just as you’d be at the front of the queue to defend them if/when they change the definition. There’s no way the definition will stick if the modelling is for millions of infections through Autumn/Winter.

Carth 27-07-2021 16:32
Re: Coronavirus
 
I'm sure we're all well aware of the times analytic & statistical 'modelling' has thrown frightening figures at us for infections, serious illness, deaths, a fractured economy, no food on the shelves etc etc.

Quite possibly 'Worst Case Scenario' has played a part in this, which is probably better than speculating on a Best Case Scenario and being hit in the goolies by people moaning they weren't warned.

Just my opinion of course :D

Sephiroth 27-07-2021 19:22
Re: Coronavirus
 
I think we need to note what has been revealed but should keep reporting as is. This would provide stability in the assessment of trends.

pip08456 27-07-2021 19:40
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36087575)
Probably India. US is pretty sorted out except for its refuseniks. Australia will hopefully come round but has a relatively small population. Middle East and South America are variable.
Why start in India or even consider it at all? It doesn't need assistance from us, there are many more countries in more need. India is well placed to look after it's own population without help.

Quote:
India's government is promising to vaccinate the whole of the adult population by the end of 2021, although its biggest vaccine maker has been struggling to meet demand.

The government aims to ramp up vaccine production, with a pledge to produce at least two billion doses between August and December this year.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55571793

Hugh 27-07-2021 21:07
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36087622)
Why start in India or even consider it at all? It doesn't need assistance from us, there are many more countries in more need. India is well placed to look after it's own population without help.



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55571793
Because the UK would like a trade deal with India, and helping with vaxs would be a positive diplomatic move.

pip08456 28-07-2021 00:38
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36087637)
Because the UK would like a trade deal with India, and helping with vaxs would be a positive diplomatic move.
Except they need no help with vax's. They are quite self sufficient in that regard.

Hugh 28-07-2021 10:16
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36087650)
Except they need no help with vax's. They are quite self sufficient in that regard.
From your link…

Quote:
although its biggest vaccine maker has been struggling to meet demand.
With our help, they can vaccinate more and quicker, thus reducing the change of further adverse mutations (also reducing sickness, hospitalisations, and deaths, hopefully).

Sephiroth 28-07-2021 10:25
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36087666)
From your link…



With our help, they can vaccinate more and quicker, thus reducing the change of further adverse mutations (also reducing sickness, hospitalisations, and deaths, hopefully).

I wonder whether or not India has got itself conflicted on hard currency arising from vaccine sales and prioritisation of inoculating the Indian population.

I would have thought that whatever the UK could contribute would be a drop in the ocean, although it might really be intended for political purposes.

Looking at this cynically, Covid might be a nice little earner for India as well as introducing a degree of population control/reduction.

BenMcr 28-07-2021 10:52
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36087666)
From your link…

With our help, they can vaccinate more and quicker, thus reducing the change of further adverse mutations (also reducing sickness, hospitalisations, and deaths, hopefully).
That's not down to the capacity they have now or could have with government direction, but existing orders and commitments to other countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36087667)

I wonder whether or not India has got itself conflicted on hard currency arising from vaccine sales and prioritisation of inoculating the Indian population.

I would have thought that whatever the UK could contribute would be a drop in the ocean, although it might really be intended for political purposes.

Looking at this cynically, Covid might be a nice little earner for India as well as introducing a degree of population control/reduction.
BBC story on it here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-57007004
Quote:
Between January and May 2021, India bought roughly 350 million doses of the two approved vaccines - the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab, manufactured as Covishield by the Serum Institute of India (SII), and Covaxin by Indian firm Bharat Biotech. At $2 per dose, they were among the cheapest in the world, but not nearly enough to inoculate even 20% of the country's population.

Declaring that India had defeated Covid, Mr Modi even took to "vaccine diplomacy", exporting more jabs than were administered in India by March.

Carth 28-07-2021 11:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
I seem to recollect reading that India has recently ramped up it's vaccine production, as well as ordering further millions of doses from elsewhere.

I would imagine that anything the UK produces, after being distributed for use here and to fulfill existing contracts, is probably a drop in the ocean for India.

Hugh 29-07-2021 12:01
Re: Coronavirus
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-b1892780.html

Quote:
Summer holiday trips to and from France will depend on infection rates and the presence of Covid variants on an island 6,000 miles away, the foreign secretary has warned.

On 16 July, ministers moved France from “amber list” status to a new “amber plus” category. The effect is to oblige all arriving travellers from France, including those who have been fully vaccinated against coronavirus, to self-isolate in the UK. The reason stated: the prevalence of the Beta variant, which is much more significant on the island of Réunion in the Indian Ocean than it is in mainland France.

Carth 29-07-2021 12:57
Re: Coronavirus
 
Sounds like the stupid (yet correct) result a computer would come up with if tasked to include all regions of France.

c'est la vie

1andrew1 29-07-2021 16:57
Re: Coronavirus
 
Well done Spain and Canada! They hold Silver and Gold medals for percentage of the population fully vaccinated whilst the UK holds a highly-respectable respectable Bronze.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/st...964291/photo/1
(Based on top 50 countries by population so excludes Israel.)

pip08456 29-07-2021 18:08
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36087861)
Well done Spain and Canada! They hold Silver and Gold medals for percentage of the population fully vaccinated whilst the UK holds a highly-respectable respectable Bronze.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/st...964291/photo/1
(Based on top 50 countries by population so excludes Israel.)
Spain Doses Administered
55,185,352
People Fully Vaccinated
26,420,097
% of Population Fully Vaccinated
56.12%

United Kingdom Doses Administered
85,017,108
People Fully Vaccinated
37,610,911
% of Population Fully Vaccinated
56.27%

Canada Doses Administered
48,176,339
People Fully Vaccinated
21,651,918
% of Population Fully Vaccinated
57.60%

Source

Hugh 29-07-2021 18:46
Re: Coronavirus
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36087873)
Spain Doses Administered
55,185,352
People Fully Vaccinated
26,420,097
% of Population Fully Vaccinated
56.12%

United Kingdom Doses Administered
85,017,108
People Fully Vaccinated
37,610,911
% of Population Fully Vaccinated
56.27%

Canada Doses Administered
48,176,339
People Fully Vaccinated
21,651,918
% of Population Fully Vaccinated
57.60%

Source
Yup…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...7&d=1627580830

1andrew1 29-07-2021 19:54
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36087873)
Spain Doses Administered
55,185,352
People Fully Vaccinated
26,420,097
% of Population Fully Vaccinated
56.12%

United Kingdom Doses Administered
85,017,108
People Fully Vaccinated
37,610,911
% of Population Fully Vaccinated
56.27%

Canada Doses Administered
48,176,339
People Fully Vaccinated
21,651,918
% of Population Fully Vaccinated
57.60%

Source
Yup, one day later and we've got silver!

These are some more worrying vaccination rates though:
DRC Flag of Congo - app 0%
Haiti - app 0%
Uganda - 0.01%
Burkina Faso - 0.02%
Papua New Guinea - 0.03%
Yemen - 0.03%
Chad - 0.04%
And it goes on!
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/st...52824192290817

Sephiroth 29-07-2021 21:05
Re: Coronavirus
 

What am I misunderstanding?

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

UK First dose: 88.4%
UK second dose: 71.4%

Carth 29-07-2021 21:15
Re: Coronavirus
 
I think it means 88.4% of the UK population have had one dose, and 71.4% have had 2 doses.

although I don't think 37,782,252 people is 71% of the UK population is it? The 46,733,115 figure is about right for 71%.



figures eh, I'm only good with the hourglass ones, and it looks like someone screwed up and mixed theirs too ;)

Chris 29-07-2021 21:41
Re: Coronavirus
 
Percentage of adults, probably. Given different countries have different policies around vaccinating teenagers, comparing adults is probably more reliable as a comparison point.

Sephiroth 29-07-2021 22:57
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36087861)
Well done Spain and Canada! They hold Silver and Gold medals for percentage of the population fully vaccinated whilst the UK holds a highly-respectable respectable Bronze.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/st...964291/photo/1
(Based on top 50 countries by population so excludes Israel.)

What sort of nonsense is this? Doses as a % of population is meaningless.

% of eligible population, i.e. adults, is what matters.

tweetiepooh 30-07-2021 10:49
Re: Coronavirus
 
I was reading that "ethical vegans" may get an exemption from "compulsory vaccinations" (e.g. possible workplaces) as they can refuse vaccines that possibly, maybe have been tested at some point on animals.

pip08456 30-07-2021 10:57
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36087946)
I was reading that "ethical vegans" may get an exemption from "compulsory vaccinations" (e.g. possible workplaces) as they can refuse vaccines that possibly, maybe have been tested at some point on animals.
Possibly, maybe not actually?

Sephiroth 30-07-2021 11:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36087946)
I was reading that "ethical vegans" may get an exemption from "compulsory vaccinations" (e.g. possible workplaces) as they can refuse vaccines that possibly, maybe have been tested at some point on animals.
My standard answer: "Sod 'em". How ethical is it to present a risk to others? Sod 'em.

tweetiepooh 30-07-2021 11:09
Re: Coronavirus
 
I think the article (only skimmed) was more that ruling that "Ethical veganism" is a philosophical belief (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359) and so "protected" means they could have exemption from the "no jab no job" rules (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-58020875)

papa smurf 30-07-2021 11:17
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36087951)
My standard answer: "Sod 'em". How ethical is it to present a risk to others? Sod 'em.
What risk are they presenting to others?

Sephiroth 30-07-2021 11:22
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36087952)
I think the article (only skimmed) was more that ruling that "Ethical veganism" is a philosophical belief (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359) and so "protected" means they could have exemption from the "no jab no job" rules (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-58020875)
Double sod 'em, then.

---------- Post added at 11:22 ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36087953)
What risk are they presenting to others?
Not vaccinated - more susceptible to infection - pass it on to vaccinated people who then have a mild (perhaps) infection and pass it on ......

papa smurf 30-07-2021 11:27
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36087954)
Double sod 'em, then.

---------- Post added at 11:22 ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 ----------



Not vaccinated - more susceptible to infection - pass it on to vaccinated people who then have a mild (perhaps) infection and pass it on ......
a bit like passing on a cold or seasonal flu, what about those lucky people who have had covid and aren't jabbed.

Sephiroth 30-07-2021 11:58
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36087959)
a bit like passing on a cold or seasonal flu, what about those lucky people who have had covid and aren't jabbed.

Could be ethical vegans. Sod ‘em.


papa smurf 30-07-2021 12:10
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36087964)

Could be ethical vegans. Sod ‘em.

is
it sod 'em because they are vegans or haven't had a jab ?

Sephiroth 30-07-2021 13:30
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36087968)
is
it sod 'em because they are vegans or haven't had a jab ?
YES.

On the former, it's the vegan evangelists who want me to stop eating meat.

papa smurf 30-07-2021 13:41
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36087976)
YES.

On the former, it's the vegan evangelists who want me to stop eating meat.
If you look into what vegan food is made from you'll realise these nutters will have a limited life span, it takes processed food to a whole new level.

Hugh 30-07-2021 15:56
Re: Coronavirus
 
1 Attachment(s)
Interesting info coming out of the CDC in the USA about the Delta variant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...mask-guidance/
Quote:
The delta variant of the coronavirus appears to cause more severe illness than earlier variants and spreads as easily as chickenpox, according to an internal federal health document that argues officials must “acknowledge the war has changed.”
Quote:
It cites a combination of recently obtained, still-unpublished data from outbreak investigations and outside studies showing that vaccinated individuals infected with delta may be able to transmit the virus as easily as those who are unvaccinated. Vaccinated people infected with delta have measurable viral loads similar to those who are unvaccinated and infected with the variant.
Quote:
The CDC’s revised mask guidance stops short of what the internal document calls for. “Given higher transmissibility and current vaccine coverage, universal masking is essential to reduce transmission of the Delta variant,” it states.

Source presentation
https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.c...f75165.#page=1

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...8&d=1627657992

The Delta variant flourishes in your nose and throat, and if you’re vaccinated, the immune system kicks in and clears the infection when the virus tries to attack the lungs - however, this takes a couple of days, and during that time, you’re shedding viral load to those around you.

tl:dr - Vaccines are still working incredibly well, but is possible for the vaccinated to become infected (perhaps asymptomatically) and spread the Delta variant to others - wearing masks helps prevent this.

Carth 30-07-2021 16:04
Re: Coronavirus
 
Certainly looks like the time is right to take all of your cash out of Bitcoin and invest in mask production ;)

Hugh 30-07-2021 16:06
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36088005)
Certainly looks like the time is right to take all of your cash out of Bitcoin and invest in mask production ;)
Or just contact your friend in the Conservative Party… :D

1andrew1 30-07-2021 18:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
New York — Walmart, the nation’s largest retailer and private employer, is reversing its mask policy and will require all of its workers, including vaccinated ones in areas with high infection rates, to wear masks.
https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/bus...rs/5429741001/

pip08456 30-07-2021 18:17
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36088000)
Interesting info coming out of the CDC in the USA about the Delta variant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...mask-guidance/






Source presentation
https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.c...f75165.#page=1

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...8&d=1627657992

The Delta variant flourishes in your nose and throat, and if you’re vaccinated, the immune system kicks in and clears the infection when the virus tries to attack the lungs - however, this takes a couple of days, and during that time, you’re shedding viral load to those around you.

tl:dr - Vaccines are still working incredibly well, but is possible for the vaccinated to become infected (perhaps asymptomatically) and spread the Delta variant to others - wearing masks helps prevent this.
Makes vaccine passports useless then.

1andrew1 30-07-2021 18:54
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36088015)
Makes vaccine passports useless then.
One key objective of vaccine passports is to encourage vaccinations, ie rewarding good behaviour. Ironically, this information does not change that objective as vaccination is still a good thing. But covid passports and mask-wearing need not be mutualy exclusive.

Hugh 30-07-2021 19:38
Re: Coronavirus
 
^^^^
.this.

Vaxs reduce the chance of one being seriously ill/hospitalised, masks reduce the chance of spreading viral load to others.

They are complementary, not exclusive.

Pierre 30-07-2021 21:42
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36088032)
^^^^
.this.

Vaxs reduce the chance of one being seriously ill/hospitalised, masks reduce the chance of spreading viral load to others.

They are complementary, not exclusive.
Encourage or coerce?

There is a very big difference, especially if state driven.

Carth 30-07-2021 22:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
I see the big push now is for pregnant women to get vaccinated, I can see that causing a few upsets.

Mr K 30-07-2021 22:38
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36088050)
I see the big push now is for pregnant women to get vaccinated, I can see that causing a few upsets.
No one should be forced to do anything. It's on their own conciense if their lack of action causes harm to themselves, their kids or anyone else. Personal responsibility, I believe it used to be called.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:38.
Page 68 of 86 « First 185864656667 68 6970717278 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum