Re: Coronavirus
 

Nope - been tested twice.

---------- Post added at 11:13 ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 ----------

Nope...

Thinking more of Lozza Fox

Re: Coronavirus
 

You must be his only follower.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Good, but that only means you hadn’t had it then.............

I’m having a minor surgical procedure done in two weeks and have to be tested on the 10th before I have it. So I’ll find out then!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Doesn’t matter. If you have had only 2 tests, since March, you could have still have had Covid-19, and not have known about it. Majority of individuals who have got infected, have been asymptomatic, such individuals can carry the virus and show on repeated tests that they are infected for up to six weeks. In my case. I’ve now been tested over 20 times. One result came back positive. I had zero symptoms. I had a follow up test about 4 weeks later, the result came back negative.

---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------

Correct. The tests are a snapshot of a person’s biological infectious state at the time of the test only. A person could have had the test, comes back negative but they were infected on the way home from the test.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which is slightly alarming considering people who test positive self isolate for a week before returning to work . . . or can't you 'transmit' it after a week?

Re: Coronavirus
 

What has happened to the antibody tests. We don't seem to hear anything about them anymore.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wonder if that's anything to do with this

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4353

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's an interesting read.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is a 10 day window in which after incubation occurs, a person is most infectious. After which Covid can remain in the body for several more weeks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

More mixed messaging from the government it seems on what counts as a substantial meal in tier 2 pubs.


https://twitter.com/theousherwood/st...63535276093440

Re: Coronavirus
 

And, away from the twattersphere, what George Eustace actually said:

Emphasis added by me for the benefit of the hard of thinking. It’s also worth stressing that the restaurant trade understands exactly what the phrase “substantial meal” means because it is integral to certain types of alcohol licence. El Gov is appealing to well-understood concepts in the trade. It’s up to the restaurant owners to follow the rules and to answer to a judge if they don’t. Given the full context of Eustace’s quote it seems unlikely a judge would accept a defence that the restaurant didn’t know what was meant by “substantial meal”.

I think unless you’re a Labour party hack or a second rate political journalist still desperate for new COVID story angles, there really isn’t anything difficult to understand about these rules.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Den, I think your first quote should have a "not" in it. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

So much for "firebreaks" working.
Link

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

My tests were October 24th and November 12th, and I’m having another on on Thursday 3rd December.