Re: Coronavirus
 

FFS, Project Fear & Paranoia in full swing again. :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sounds like it.


But it does make sense to be cautious if you're not sure. It's new in SA and there may not have been enough time to know if it's going to cause a rise in hospitalisations yet. But one of the SA medical chiefs says that the symptoms are mild - she has said they aren't seeing the loss of taste/smell, only a slight cough, muscle/headache in people who are testing positive. If that is the extent of it, how much does it matter how transmissible it is or how much it evades previous immunity.



We don't even really know where it came from, where already has it, and if we have more of it but people have not got the usual symptoms and thought to get a test.


I know it's not in yet, but I've just been shopping, hardly anyone was wearing a mask in the shops (but yes, it's not in yet, and they weren't busy) and no-one on PT was (from the buses I saw) where it's still been basically suggested all the time. It will be interesting to see how this changes.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Genuine question.

If you test positive on a Lat flow, and then decide to double check on either a 2nd Lat flow or PCR and test positive again. Is that recorded as 2no. Positive tests? Or do the ONS scrub the second test?

Re: Coronavirus
 

They record the first positive test. People testing positive after the 1st one don't count again.


But I don't think a positive LFT really counts as a positive test until it's been confirmed by PCR. If you test positive on a LFT presumably it tells you to book a PCR test.

---------- Post added at 20:04 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------

One thing which is interesting about the announcement (which I still think he couldn't have been less clear on in some parts) is the whole isolation change.


So, understandably now anyone who's a close contact of a new variant case has to isolate, even if they're vaccinated. Makes sense if we don't know how the vaccine works yet. But this is easier said than done now venues don't need QR codes or to take contact details of people. No-one's going to know who was on the number 32 bus with them (and it would be a bit tricky getting the driver to log contact details of all passengers or even those who can't scan a QR code). So if you're called for contact tracing then you might be able to say where you were and what time but they won't know who else was there, unless you know them.



Even saying face masks in shops - what's a shop anyway? What about places like Greggs or Subway where they have areas for eat in and takeaway, are they retail or hospitality? When is it becoming mandatory (presumably this will still need to be put before Parliament, though you can expect that will be a formality, Hoyle won't be too happy that law's been announced to the country before the MPs)?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, or the full quote.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/87949404.cms

Re: Coronavirus
 

I was trying to find it from somewhere more reputable, maybe from what she said herself.


But basically, if (and it's a massive if) that's all it is, on the face of it, it will probably be nothing to worry about.


She also said in the same quote - from recollection - that it is mainly younger people who are presenting with it anyway.


It still makes sense to be cautious whilst the facts are looked into.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not an expert but wouldn't a mild version of COVID be a good thing in that it boosts immunity without much death and also be a sign things it's getting less serious?

Still, best make sure. I think it's smart to be careful for a few weeks until we see the outcome.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, if the virus is more mild we need to worry about it less. We don't care about colds and some coronaviruses cause colds, they may well have mutated from something more severe. SARS-CoV-2 is more transmissible and less severe than the original SARS which didn't spread well but which few survived.



It is key for a virus to not kill its host, and to spread to others, and one of the best ways for it to do this is to be mild symptom wise and highly transmissible.


This virus has around 30 mutations from wild type and most of them have been seen before. But whilst we know how they work on other variants they might not work the same together. Some mutations may even render it useless because the spike protein is deformed too much to bind to cells. It may be that having a mutation which makes vaccine resistance in itself and one with increased transmissibility in itself when put together don't do that. This is why they need to look into this, see what the actual illness is, how it progresses after a few weeks, how the vaccines respond etc etc.



We need to be sure of the facts but:
- if this mutation can swerve all immunity and is transmissible enough to outcompete Delta and the course of the illness is unchanged or more severe we have a big problem. None of the infection from previous will mean anything, none of the vaccines we have given out will mean anything, it will leave basically everyone susceptible to hospitalisation or death from covid again, basically the same as 2020 but with a virus which gets around quicker.
- if it can swerve immunity and is more transmissible than Delta but doesn't make people ill then this is probably ideal. It will outcompete the more severe Delta variant which means that yes people will get ill but none of them will get badly ill. Delta will disappear meaning that most people will get the covid immunity with no severe illness.


And let's not also forget any immunity defeating is likely to be partial.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's the case in England. In Wales, Scotland and NI they only count positive PCRs.

In England it does. But if you get a positive LFT followed by a negative PCR, you are removed from the count.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/about-data

Note that false-positive LFTs are rare.

Re: Coronavirus
 

False negative LFTs are more concerning though.


But on another note, let's not forget what they both measure. Both tests fundamentally work the same way, but a PCR is more precise.



It is looking for a match with a gene sequence from the virus.



If that gene sequence is present in the sample it will return positive (within cycle count).


This means that the virus has been found in the sample. It doesn't mean the virus is replicating in the person the sample was taken from, and it doesn't mean the person is contagious.


I seem to recall seeing a few weeks back there was a new covid test which could be used on saliva which could detect that. Potentially a lot more useful...


(Especially given the inventor of the PCR test said exactly this)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Optimism, hopeless optimism.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Quite. I just demonstrates these measures are just to show the government is doing something.

Most thinking people know that masks are next to useless.

---------- Post added at 02:09 ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 ----------

And from you, pessimism, hopeless pessimism.

Any update on when the end of the world will be upon us?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Any scientific evidence, OB or are you just spouting your usual covid speculation?

It's been known for some considerable time that the Beta variant destroys vaccine efficacy and reinfects people infected in previous waves (Manaus, Brazil).

The biggest fear is that a variant takes the qualities of Beta, and transmission rates of Delta. And here we are. Inevitably.

I hope you didn't pay a desposit for the CF Christmas Party. :)

---------- Post added at 03:14 ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 ----------

A tedious, but not unexpected, analysis - nobody expects the Government to sit on their hands over a weekend or to expect MPs to fly back in from their second jobs, for some uncontroversial secondary legislation to pass on travel restrictions.

Secondary legislation is designed in this way, with clearly defined processes under the affirmative and negative procedures whereby the Secretary of State can sign into law legislation as required. Your ignorance of this fact is somewhat irregular, given almost all of the Covid restrictions to date have operated in the same manner.

Re: Coronavirus
 

interesting briefing last night from bozo and the two sales men, booster jab this booster jab that booster jab the other, with lots of scientific words like could/maybe/if/ possibly....., clearly big pharma is running the country like a branch of boots the chemist ,pop in get a jab make us rich.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Next to useless at what?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’d be interested to hear the scientific evidence that says masks in shops - reduces transmission, masks in pubs - makes no difference, not required.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think much scientific evidence is needed to show that drinking through a mask is harder than loading a shopping trolley whilst wearing a mask. Pragmatism Pierre, pragmatism.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That assertion is not evidence-based - science shows otherwise.

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/375/...68302.full.pdf

Re: Coronavirus
 

You call it pragmatism, I call it bullshot.

Briefly walking around a well ventilated, spacious supermarket without being in close proximity to anyone for any extended period of time = mask.

Stood and/or sat in very close proximity with lots of people, usually in not so well ventilated premises, laughing, joking talking loudly over the noise. = no mask.

It’s not pragmatism it’s contradiction.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Absolutely true - Boris playing to the cheap seats, risking spreading infections so as not to upset voters.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’d think that it’s more likely been done to appease the treasury/backbenchers who don’t want to see the economy being damaged.

Still, nice to know that the virus has given us till Tuesday before we need to wear masks

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well it picks the time and places that it will infect people, we should be grateful that it is has evolved into the super being that it now is and for the fact it is allowing us to go out at all.

i wasn't convinced by anything the prime minister's husband said in the briefing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m sure the ‘prime ministers husband’ is distraught at this revelation. Positively sobbing into his cheerios no less

Re: Coronavirus
 

See him as more a fruit loop type of person.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well they do say we recognise our own character traits in others easily 😉

Re: Coronavirus
 

The %age risk of anything is meaningless the more times you take that risk.
Eg If something occurs when you throw a double six with a pair of dice, the more times you throw those dice, the greater the chance that one of those times a double six will appear.
A 50% reduction is meaningless, unless the incidence in others is low in the first place. If you meet up with several people, several times, who are all infected, that 50% reduction goes right out of the window.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The odds of throwing a double 6 never changes haha

Re: Coronavirus
 

That depends on if you roll the dice or not 😉

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not really. If I do not throw the dice I will always have 0% chance of throwing a double 6. If I throw the dice each time I have a 1/36 chance

Re: Coronavirus
 

So a 0/36 vs a 1/36

Re: Coronavirus
 

I am all for taking precautions my dice thing was just for lolz

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or, not the full quote as it would appear

Re: Coronavirus
 

I didn't say that. The odds of it happening on at least one occasion, amongst all those throws still increases. You only have to catch Covid ONCE, which is what we're talking about.
If you throw a pair of dice, a billion times, then a double six is highly likely to have come up at least once in one of those billion throws. Although theoretically possible that a double six wouldn't have appeared in any of those billion throws, you shouldn't bet on that happening.
It is not measuring win vs loss, the loss is "catastrophic". If you lose everything if it is a double six, would you take part? And if so, how many times would you risk taking part? The wins could never compensate for any loss.

Re: Coronavirus
 

jebus cripes it was just meant as a humorous retort not a serious reply

Re: Coronavirus
 

So potentially catching, spreading, creating new variants is humorous?
The problem is that people can easily pick up on a "humorous" comment and treat it as fact.

Re: Coronavirus
 

wind ya neck in

Bit of humour in these dark days is a good thing

(Yeah Hugh I get the irony)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Jesus, take a chill pill. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

So not only did they have time to get into the UK, they moved around, and had time to leave again.
Link

Demonstrates how long it can go undetected, especially with milder symptoms.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I watched her interview, and said that the cases were in a University, among the students.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wow, so 3 cases now, but one isnt even in the Uk anymore.

Oh, and apparently milder symptoms as well.
So obviously we need to over-react once more and lockdown for another 6 months. :dozey:

Eventually someone will realise its a battle you can never win, and we wasted 3 years and gazillions of pounds trying.
Eventually either everyone caught it, or they were immune (natually or due to vaccines).

Re: Coronavirus
 

or they get seriously ill suffer for a long time or die. Maybe me maybe you maybe someone I love maybe someone you love

Re: Coronavirus
 

Life’s a bitch.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That can happen with other things too though. I'm not suggesting that reasonable measures shouldn't be taken to prevent covid deaths but it's only one thing in a whole host of things which need to be considered.


We don't go all out on flu - though that has a lower fatality due to existing immunity and flu jabs - even though people with certain health conditions are vulnerable to that too, and can be hospitalised and die.



I think it's sensible taking reasonable precautions to try and slow this down both getting in and spreading within the country but really these measures are like sticking your finger in a leaky dike and expecting it to stop, it won't. It is no doubt here and the damage is already done, if it's that transmissible maybe even a full lockdown won't stop it, boosters are the way to go whilst they look at a new vaccine if it's needed. But it may well turn out the virus is milder and/or won't take off. Only hindsight will give the answer there.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s cold…

Anyway, the Mail’s "War on Christmas" stories get earlier every year - it’s not even December yet…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...6&d=1638135302

Re: Coronavirus
 

A) three known cases at this point, quite like how delta started out

B) Wasn’t the primary point of lockdown to ensure that the NHS didn’t get overran with cases due to having no vaccines or treatment options, and to allow vaccines to be developed?

C) Re milder symptoms we’ve got one African Dr saying this (she’s been misquoted) and we’ve got scientists globally going ‘hmmm hang on a minute, we don’t know this yet’

We’ve got a few scenarios

1) transmission rate higher than delta, but less severe illness is potentially a route out of this entire pandemic.

2) transmission rate remains broadly similar, severity of illness remains the same = we carry on the same path as we are now

3) transmissions rate higher, severity of illness the same, significant vaccine escape = reimposition of restrictions in varying forms until updated vaccines can be rolled out.

Lockdown is only going to reoccur on option 3

Re: Coronavirus
 

... or vastly more likely, none of those things.

Maybe they will get run over tomorrow, but that doesnt mean we ban all transport, or insist everyone who crosses the road wear a protective bubble.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, but we do have pedestrian crossings, and teach the green cross code. and also other countries fine pedestrians for jaywalking

Re: Coronavirus
 

no but restrictions are in place to protect other road users. You must not drink and drive, speeds limits, right of way priorities and so on

Re: Coronavirus
 

The equivalent of vaccination against being run over.

See above.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed, but now let’s change it so that we drive on the right hand side of the road and instead of crossing on green we cross on red. All of a sudden what we’ve known previously is pretty much useless and we need time to update people with the changes. Until such time expect to see an increase in accidents and fatalities

Re: Coronavirus
 

yeah along with wearing a mask working from home when you can and social distancing where possible. Rules are rules and have to be followed.....

Re: Coronavirus
 

You're obviously taking some really good stuff.
Lets all pretend aliens invaded while we are at it. :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

It will be neverending until enough people say enough and stop complying theres already a growing number that have had enough.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The virus doesn’t care…

Re: Coronavirus
 

No hugh it doesn't but then neither does flu and the last time we shut the nation down for flu since the 50's?, stop acting as though this is a virus with a high mortality rate because it isn't

Re: Coronavirus
 

South Africa is not very happy

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-59453842

Even peoples favourite WHO ;

Re: Coronavirus
 

We did 100 years ago and will in time do so again I'm sure, funny thing is though 100 years ago people could actually wear a mask.

They talking about bozo, not a very respectful way to talk about the PM...


Every over 18 year old to be offered a booster in an attempt to save Christmas, apparently

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not really, you started with the vehicular analogy, my apologies if you can’t follow where I’m taking it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Christmas 2022? Way too late to have much impact this year.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is it talking to you now?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The same arguments happened then as now unfortunately.

https://www.history.com/news/1918-sp...ing-resistance

Re: Coronavirus
 

piers Corbyn and friends on wearing masks, this could be the xmas no 1.


Piers Corbyn led the mob beamoaning the new restrictions in video

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-trousers.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

Do they know it's Covid time at all?

Re: Coronavirus
 

COVID was the leading cause of death in the U.K. in 2020…

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...auses-of-death

It’s currently the third leading cause of death in the U.K. in the latest figures.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat.../september2021

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's mortality rate is between 1 & 2% people are not dying in droves or dropping dead in the streets the response is out of proportion and increasing amounts of people are agreeing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

between 1% and 2% . . .

5.2 million deaths worldwide from a population of 7.9 billion

although the figure possibly, might, maybe, could, be correct for the UK, not trying to open up old arguments about 'with' and 'from' ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

First you compared it to the flu

2018 deaths from flu - 1598
2019 deaths from flu - 1223
2020 deaths from COVID - 72718
2021 (so far) deaths from COVID - 71k (approx.)

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/trans...0182019and2020

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...er-2020-report

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ion-in-the-uk/

Now you’re using the old "percentage" gambit, rather than actual figures, but if you compare normal number of deaths in the U.K. (around 600,000) versus the number of COVID deaths (around 70,000 each year in the last two years), not quite so "out of proportion".

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yup, there's a good reason why governments round the world are taking the action they're taking.

It's healthy to critique what governments are saying and not take what anyone says at face value without digging into the facts. But you need to do the legwork and look at the evidence, as you have done.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's a higher mortality rate than Lassa Fever, Polio, Whooping Cough, Malaria and Hepatitis A (source) but much easier to catch

Re: Coronavirus
 

I wonder how many of the 70,000 odd covid attributable deaths would have died of something else anyway and been part of the 600,000? :scratch:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Like had heart attack but had mild covid symptoms weeks earlier , had cancer but had mild covid symptoms weeks earlier ,fell off a roof but had mild covid symptoms weeks earlier ...................

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe didn't even need symptoms, a positive test would be suffice . . . although statistics are statistics and not to be argued with ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

it's quite a serious breach of trust though if the figures are being manipulated and the actual covid deaths are much lower.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No one can follow the fantasy land you went in. :spin:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you may have a good point there.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think he's a bit of a loon.


But actually there is a bit of merit in considering his actual point here.


Most of the masks people wear here are paper or cloth. When you wear trousers and presumably underwear as well that's 2 or 3 layers over your arse of basically the same thing. Yet people can still smell your fart so that means it's passing through multiple layers of cloth.



Where it falls down, of course, is that what you're smelling in farts is a gas and what the mask is trapping is a virus, usually embedded in a droplet or aerosol, which is much larger.


Though if you go past a rather smelly fish counter in a supermarket your mask stinks...


Also, looks like 3rd doses for all over 18s (probably rolled out by age) and 2nd for 12-15 year olds, can't think under 12s will be too long either. What we have will no doubt help - and let's hope this does turn out to be mild.

Re: Coronavirus
 

In the latest poll on YouGov, 83% of Britons support the new requirement in England for face masks to be worn in shops and on public transport.

Support - 83%
Oppose - 14%

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/s...ign=question_2

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1638208835

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...0&d=1638208835

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1638208835

Re: Coronavirus
 

you always get what you're paying for in a poll/survey.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Interesting article about the possible origin of the virus.



https://www.technologyreview.com/202...b-global-en-GB

Re: Coronavirus
 

You Gov is not a random poll. Quite the opposite and I wouldn’t believe anything they come up with as being representative

https://yougov.co.uk/join-community/?sourceid=1616924

---------- Post added at 20:25 ---------- Previous post was at 20:23 ----------

If it doesn’t say it came from Wuhan lab then it’s a deflection piece.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Even if its main subject is an epidemiologist who said it came from a Wuhan lab, then reviewed all the evidence and changed his mind?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of course they do.
Project Fear has done an excellent job of brainwashing the public into thinking its worse than any plague (ever), almost the end of the world, and definitely a deadly nerve agent that will kill you on contact (and you'll likely catch it just from looking at other people without a mask). :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yep. Look you and I know that I am not qualified.

But I do have a degree in Bullshit detection.

It’s like a like a deadly strain of measles suddenly appeared out of Birmingham, and situated in Birmingham was the “Birmingham measles experimental and developmental laboratory”. What are the chances….?
.
Then everybody said the outbreak actually occurred in a chip shop in Solihull.

Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Re: Coronavirus
 

coincidences do exist.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Usually conveniently.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Then it is unlikely to be a coincidence. I am not naive enough to think conspiracy's do not happen but I am also not stupid enough to think everything is one

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m sorry to tell you this, but it’s a fake degree - so your degree in Bullshit Detection is bullshit.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wuhan is a big city though. It's larger than London. And China has a lot of coronaviruses strains in its animal population so it's not surprising a major population centre in China has a lab studying a virus endemic to China.

In your example, if there was a virus endemic to the U.K, a type of virus of which different strains emerged all the time, then it would be perfectly feasible that there could both be a lab studying them and a new outbreak both in Birmingham.

It's hardly an extraordinary coincidence.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So we have to wear masks again (I have no problem with that) but you don't need them in cinemas or pubs! Two places where people are going to be in close proximity.

Crazy!

Re: Coronavirus
 

££££££££££

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s not fake I got it from the Open University

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think if you look very closely, you’ll find it’s from the 0pen Unyversiti *

*accreditation by the (lack of) QAA, and signed off by the Government (of Nauru).

;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can you smell it? Putting my degree to work again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Strange isn't it . . I read that and instantly had the 'Thunderclap Newman' tune 'Something in the air' playing in my head ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

I agree with that, and I have to say that the number against wearing face masks looks impossibly small to me. They obviously haven’t been taking opinions in my neck of the woods, and we have a pretty mixed population here - young, middle-aged, old, Indians, Chinese, Africans, etc.

Many of the people serving in shops didn’t wear them even on the day before the restrictions became a legal requirement.

What we are seeing is attempted mass indoctrination fuelled by publicity seeking scientists who want to control us. They are certainly having some measure of success with Boris.

---------- Post added at 14:47 ---------- Previous post was at 14:43 ----------

It’s Boris’s two fingers to the science community. The face mask mandate will be lifted in a few weeks and he can say he acted quickly and that his light-touch precautionary approach was justified.

People won’t put up with these variant scares forever. The scientists appear to be seizing opportunities for their moment of fame while they have people listening nervously to their every pronouncement.

They need to wind their necks in.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Link

That's how easily it spreads. Possibly just one person infected at least 8 others. That's an R rate of well above 1 or 2.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All that mask wearing hand washing and vaccine passports etc hasn't worked then.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or...

It has reduced what could have been a higher number of infections.

That's like saying, after you see a car crash, "told you brakes were pointless!"... :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I've thought about that one - and specifically where they have applied it.


The full list, incidentally, is on the gov site
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-face-covering

On the point regarding hospitality, then this is the reason why:
In fact, it was somewhat silly that you had to wear one before, when going in and out, but not when sat at the table. Provided people keep apart moving around is less of a risk than being sat talking after all. It's like some offices where you have to wear one when moving around but not when you're sat at your desk talking, where's the virus going to build up if you have it?


They probably have cinemas and other settings covered by the below, but note this isn't a legal requirement, and comes under the "consider wearing one in crowded indoor spaces" guidance which has always been the case since lifting the mask mandate:

Also, the (self-declared) exceptions still apply and if you can't perform a task with a face covering on (such as paying for something in a shop with face id or similar) you can remove it for that task.


Thinking about the list of places, and given we don't know the facts about Omicron yet, it seems that these are places where if you need to go then you need to - even if you are immunocompromised and at risk from the virus, so this tries to help reduce the spread in these settings - but pubs, cinemas, concerts, places of worship, museums, art galleries etc you have the choice to go to.


It's also a bit daft as always there are inconsistencies - for example if you are in a museum you don't have to in the museum itself but not the shop. And a takeaway you have to if it has no facility to sit and eat in - but if it does, even if you're not using it, you don't.

Re: Coronavirus
 

3 jabs /masks /sanitizing /vaccine passports /blaah blaah blaah .............somethings not working and it's not the brakes on an old jalopy