Coronavirus

[Hom3r]

My last job said that if you have to self isolate you would only get SSP, otherwise it would be full pay.


This was long before vaccines.

It's why people wanted the Government to increase SSP to ensure people who were infected didn't go in back before vaccines were so widely administered.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

if you don't know you have it ,because you haven't tested for it how can it be.

If you had no symptoms, that would be fine, however, thats not what you said.

turn up for work to receive full pay when they show symptoms.

If you show symptoms you should isolate and get a test.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/corona...nd-what-to-do/

Self-isolate straight away and get a PCR test (a test that is sent to the lab) on GOV.UK as soon as possible if you have any of these 3 symptoms of COVID-19, even if they are mild:

a high temperature
a new, continuous cough
a loss or change to your sense of smell or taste

Since thats the NHS site, Im not clear if thats an actual legal requirement.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Paul

If you had no symptoms, that would be fine, however, thats not what you said.



If you show symptoms you should isolate and get a test.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/corona...nd-what-to-do/


Since thats the NHS site, Im not clear if thats an actual legal requirement.

you might argue you thought it was just a cold apparently they have similar symptoms.

don't forget the unvaccinated are selfish and evil.........

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Fanciful.

How so? Fewer tests, fewer positive outcomes.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Paul

If you show symptoms you should isolate and get a test.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/corona...nd-what-to-do/


Since thats the NHS site, Im not clear if thats an actual legal requirement.

Pointless. I fail to see the reason for needing to isolate.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:15 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Fanciful.

Well, it is guaranteed that the fewer tests, the fewer recorded infections.

We should use the percentage of tests that are positive anyway, that's in part why we get hysterical headlines about having the highest cases in Europe that ignore how many tests we do.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Damien

We should use the percentage of tests that are positive anyway, that's in part why we get hysterical headlines about having the highest cases in Europe that ignore how many tests we do.

What about the people that couldn't get tested or just didn't bother? They are missing from the figures too.
My son needed a pcr test a couple of weeks ago none available either to book or by post so he'll be missing from the figures.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well, it is guaranteed that the fewer tests, the fewer recorded infections.

I find it incredible that so many people are not seeing the link between the number of tests and the number of recorded infections.

It’s no wonder the numbers have been so high latterly with the massive increase in PCR testing. With the rules changing which allow for lateral flow tests instead, just watch the numbers plummet.

The focus on these numbers is causing far more alarm than is justified. Most people are getting this with minimal, if any symptoms. Time to get this in perspective. We haven’t been jabbed thrice for no reason.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I find it incredible that so many people are not seeing the link between the number of tests and the number of recorded infections.

It’s no wonder the numbers have been so high latterly with the massive increase in PCR testing. With the rules changing which allow for lateral flow tests instead, just watch the numbers plummet.

The focus on these numbers is causing far more alarm than is justified. Most people are getting this with minimal, if any symptoms. Time to get this in perspective. We haven’t been jabbed thrice for no reason.

Time will tell if that's true.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It’s no wonder the numbers have been so high latterly with the massive increase in PCR testing. With the rules changing which allow for lateral flow tests instead, just watch the numbers plummet.

The number of LFT results has already increased faster than PCR tests.

Though about 90% of LFT results are never reported, so really we haven't got a clue what the positivity rate is.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

How so? Fewer tests, fewer positive outcomes.

The pandemic doesn’t exist because people test. It exists because people get ill.

It’s no more credible to have a “bury head in sand” approach now than it was in February 2020.

---------- Post added at 20:53 ---------- Previous post was at 20:51 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I find it incredible that so many people are not seeing the link between the number of tests and the number of recorded infections.

It’s no wonder the numbers have been so high latterly with the massive increase in PCR testing. With the rules changing which allow for lateral flow tests instead, just watch the numbers plummet.

The focus on these numbers is causing far more alarm than is justified. Most people are getting this with minimal, if any symptoms. Time to get this in perspective. We haven’t been jabbed thrice for no reason.

200,000 people a day didn’t test positive because they felt fine and randomly took a test for entertainment value. Similarly the rise in cases around Europe, America and the rest of the world isn’t some collective mass hysteria.

---------- Post added at 20:59 ---------- Previous post was at 20:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Pointless. I fail to see the reason for needing to isolate.

Pierre’s either gone full Great Barrington or his pandemic management is even worse than his interpretation of statistics. Or both I suppose.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jfman

The pandemic doesn’t exist because people test. It exists because people get ill.

200,000 people a day didn’t test positive because they felt fine and randomly took a test for entertainment value.

Possibly, possibly not.


But the fact is that people are encouraged to take LFTs before doing things even if they feel perfectly well.


So what you're saying is somewhat untrue. 200k people, or the vast majority of them, may well have indeed felt perfectly fine, but took a LFT before going shopping, or seeing elderly relatives, or going to a carol service for christmas, or whatever, somehow it ends up positive, they have the virus without realising it.



And those situations did actually show because people tested as opposed to them getting ill.


Add onto that the people who do have symptoms but don't have covid. Whilst strictly speaking with negative tests they can do what they like, is that a good idea?


Asymptomatic spread is an issue with all viruses, whilst the logic to stopping spread is clearly still true, testing people who aren't unwell as a long term measure clearly isn't sustainable.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

or his pandemic management is even worse than his interpretation of statistics. Or both I suppose.

says the guy who can’t differentiate between % of population and rate per 100,000. Or between rate per population or rate in hospital.

Never mind, I’m sure if I gave you some crayons you would probably eat one and scribble all over a picture of Elsa from Frozen, and not stay within the lines….!

Thats enough from both of you.