Coronavirus

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

Nice selective quotation, Pierre.

And in actual fact in the pandemic it's a sensible precautionary action to stop the NHS being overwhelmed. The data will inevitably support schools bring the cause as infections drop in Tier 4 areas that have, to date, seen increases.

---------- Post added at 20:47 ---------- Previous post was at 20:44 ----------

Option A: Their parents who in turn caught it in non-essential retail.
Option B: Schools where there's no requirement to distance, no masks and poor ventilation. Plus cramming kids onto school buses to get there.

Now I'm no expert but one of those scenarios has all the reasons I'm not allowed to go into work.

Can only hope they are the answer, otherwise home schooling is going to go on a lot longer.

The original thinking on schools, was that they don't reach the stage of being able to infect anybody else. That might still be the case, but testing of schoolkids would highlight those "infected, but not infectious", creating a possible false alarm. Somebody can be immune, but still present with a positive test. The virus has to be present in the body for the immune system to deal with any subsequent reinfection.



People who have been previously breaking the rules, will still do so. People have have been gathering in large groups for weddings and funerals will still do so. Those gathering for "elite sports" such as dominoes, will still do so.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Age 2 to school year 6 children have the 3rd highest infection rate, after school year 7 to 11 and school year 12 to age 24.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...o-had-covid-19

BuT tHeY cOuLd HaVe GoT iT fRoM tHeRe PaReNtS

My other favourite is the claim they will all meet up and hang about anyway. It's not the 1970s. Games consoles are in.

Originally Posted by nomadking

The original thinking on schools, was that they don't reach the stage of being able to infect anybody else. That might still be the case, but testing of schoolkids would highlight those "infected, but not infectious", creating a possible false alarm. Somebody can be immune, but still present with a positive test. The virus has to be present in the body for the immune system to deal with any subsequent reinfection.



People who have been previously breaking the rules, will still do so. People have have been gathering in large groups for weddings and funerals will still do so. Those gathering for "elite sports" such as dominoes, will still do so.

Thats a helluva assumption...

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Thats a helluva assumption...

Hence use of the word "might".

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Age 2 to school year 6 children have the 3rd highest infection rate, after school year 7 to 11 and school year 12 to age 24.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...o-had-covid-19

Been over that two days ago.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=2373

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Been over that two days ago.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=2373

And as pointed out two days ago you quoted sources published in October, based on data from when schools were closed.

SAGE, and other Government advisors, will be using actual up to date data based on the experiences in schools. It's notable the only declines in prevalence among school age children are linked to the mid term break.

Let's be honest they've been trying to keep the schools open at all costs, in my view in error, so the question is why would they now close them if the evidence didn't support it?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

And in actual fact

. An actual fact!

in the pandemic it's a sensible precautionary action to stop the NHS being overwhelmed. The data will inevitably support schools bring the cause as infections drop in Tier 4 areas that have, to date, seen increases.

I certainly hope so, it would be terrible if was unnecessarily done. But at least you acknowledge the data doesn’t support it yet.

[Carth]

Gotta love those graphs/charts

Apparently they show I live in an area where I have 1% chance of testing positive for covid-19, and I'm also in the age group that has a 1% chance of testing positive for covid-19. . . does that mean my chances are now 1% of 1%?

I'd say that calls for (yet) another large Brandy

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

. An actual fact!

I certainly hope so, it would be terrible if was unnecessarily done. But at least you acknowledge the data doesn’t support it yet.

Far from it Pierre, for the avoidance of doubt I'm saying the data will be so clear that even you cannot ignore it.

https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....impact-3079917

National data suggests between two to five per cent of Covid-19 patients will go on to develop ‘long Covid’ - suffering symptoms beyond 12 weeks - leading to an estimated 980 people in Leeds from the first wave alone.

The city’s specialist ‘Covid After-Care team’ began work in September, just days after being set up, in a fast-moving bid to reach those in need in Leeds - and what they have uncovered so far has been startling.

From the first 188 patients referred in, they have found the average age was 48, with more women than men, none had originally been hospitalised and many were previously extremely fit including personal trainers and athletes now struggling for breath at rest.

The findings have overturned initial expectations that those most affected would be those who had suffered more severely initially - such as the ‘at-risk’ older age groups - and that symptoms would be mainly respiratory.

Dr Bryan Power, a GP and clinical lead for long term conditions at NHS Leeds Clinical Commissioning Group, who helped set up the team, said: “It’s not the cohort we expected to see.

“They are of a younger age than we expected - including a 17-year-old - and also presenting with a complex range of symptoms. Some patients haven’t been able to work for six months.”

---------- Post added at 21:20 ---------- Previous post was at 21:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

Gotta love those graphs/charts

Apparently they show I live in an area where I have 1% chance of testing positive for covid-19, and I'm also in the age group that has a 1% chance of testing positive for covid-19. . . does that mean my chances are now 1% of 1%?

I'd say that calls for (yet) another large Brandy

Treat yourself - have a large Cognac...

Originally Posted by Hugh

Age 2 to school year 6 children have the 3rd highest infection rate

Good job Nurseries will be closed as well then.


... oh wait ... they wont ....

[gba93]

Originally Posted by Paul

Good job Nurseries will be closed as well then.


... oh wait ... they wont ....

Well ... they might ... school nurseries can be treated like the rest of the school so may be closed anyway.

You have seen the rules i take it ?

Early years settings such as nurseries will stay open

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by gba93

Well ... they might ... school nurseries can be treated like the rest of the school so may be closed anyway.

Childcare
There are several ways that parents and carers can continue to access
childcare:
Early Years settings (including nurseries and childminders) remain
open
● Vulnerable children and children of critical workers can continue to
use registered childcare, childminders and other childcare
activities (including wraparound care)
● parents are able to form a childcare bubble with one other
household for the purposes of informal childcare, where the child
is under 14. This is mainly to enable parents to work, and must not
be used to enable social contact between adults
● some households will also be able to benefit from being in a
support bubble
● nannies will be able to continue to provide services, including in
the home

Originally Posted by Pierre

. An actual fact!



I certainly hope so, it would be terrible if was unnecessarily done. But at least you acknowledge the data doesn’t support it yet.

Which data?