Coronavirus

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Mick

Chris, the care home industry is on its knees. Homes are getting some additional funding but it’s still doesn’t cover all the voids they have. (Voids = empty rooms).

I’ve said much earlier probably in now the other closed thread, but when there is not enough staff to care for a fully occupied home, this is extra old people occupying hospital beds.

Now tonight, MPs vote through mandatory vaccines for NHS staff, 73,000 are not jabbed, not going to get into the reasonings for this, but if they don’t get jabbed, that’s a lot of vacancies on an already troublesome industry suffering from shortfalls. We’re going to have a third world health industry with this governments handling of it. I’m close to walking away myself it is this bad and this government, just doesn’t give a shit, so why should I continue?

I can feel some of your anger & stress in the situation you face and I feel for you. I am not being sarcastic or trolling here. I do not think the general public understand how difficult a job the healthcare professionals are doing at the moment. I would not wish that on anyone. Anyone who works in the healthcare sector has my utmost respect whatever they do.

---------- Post added at 23:08 ---------- Previous post was at 22:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Your argument and the specifics you apply to it, to make it.

The logic is cogent & robust. Which part is "thin" and what is the proof? Please do not include opinion in your response, that is not proof.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Unfortunately LFTs have a false negative rate of up to 50%.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...g-surveillance

The low detection % is when testing asymptomatically it’s significantly higher if symptomatic

My point remains, an LFD gives a better ‘live’ data set as to who is potentially infected. A covid pass based on vaccination offers nothing, apart from showing you’ve had x doses of a vaccine

All a negative LFD does is suggest you dont have an infection at the time of taking the test.

You could have it, and still show negative.
You could catch it 5 minutes after taking the test.

Vacinations are at least more "long lasting", they are not invalid minutes after you have them.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Mick

More nonsense & claptrap. I’m sticking to vaccines do not stop transmission. Utter rubbish it stops transmission by 70%. That table is incorrect.

At the end of the day, you’re vaccinated so if you feel so damn safe, then your apparent risk is small from either unvaccinated or vaccinated persons because being either, does not stop you catching Covid. Stop going on about stupid percentages and misinformation, it is a correct fact that being vaccinated does not stop transmission, there is no sugar coating it with irrelevant and fabricated data.

So, the authors who work at;

• Big Data Institute, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
• NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
• Department of Health and Social Care, UK Government, London, UK
• Deloitte MCS Ltd, London, UK
• William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London UK
• Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
• Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford

Have fabricated data? Pretty bold claim and a pretty big scandal if true. Any evidence that they have fabricated this data?

Originally Posted by Paul

All a negative LFD does is suggest you dont have an infection at the time of taking the test.

You could have it, and still show negative.
You could catch it 5 minutes after taking the test.

Vacinations are at least more "long lasting", they are not invalid minutes after you have them.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

The low detection % is when testing asymptomatically it’s significantly higher if symptomatic

My point remains, an LFD gives a better ‘live’ data set as to who is potentially infected. A covid pass based on vaccination offers nothing, apart from showing you’ve had x doses of a vaccine

I think that they are playing a percentage numbers game here: if you have had 2+ jabs or -ve LFT, you are statistically less likely to a) have Covid and b) pass it on.

There will always be individual contradictions but it is at the macro level that this will be fought & won (or lost).

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I think that they are playing a percentage numbers game here: if you have had 2+ jabs or -ve LFT, you are statistically less likely to a) have Covid and b) pass it on.

There will always be individual contradictions but it is at the macro level that this will be fought & won (or lost).

Yep of course, they’re saying that if you’ve had x doses of vaccine then you’re % less likely to have the virus. Which is fair enough apart from

We’re all being asked to take lfd before we meet with friends etc. so why not everyone take a lateral flow test before any large event ?

If they’re so ineffective, as purported above. Why are we being asked to take them at all?

Can’t have it both ways I’m afraid

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I can feel some of your anger & stress in the situation you face and I feel for you. I am not being sarcastic or trolling here. I do not think the general public understand how difficult a job the healthcare professionals are doing at the moment. I would not wish that on anyone. Anyone who works in the healthcare sector has my utmost respect whatever they do.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I think that they are playing a percentage numbers game here: if you have had 2+ jabs or -ve LFT, you are statistically less likely to a) have Covid and b) pass it on.

There will always be individual contradictions but it is at the macro level that this will be fought & won (or lost).

Yes if the benchmark is 100% effective then nothing meets that high standard. It’d be nice if it did and we could go for elimination. However “living with the virus” is managing it via mitigations. Percentages here, percentages there.

Originally Posted by jonbxx

So, the authors who work at;

• Big Data Institute, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
• NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
• Department of Health and Social Care, UK Government, London, UK
• Deloitte MCS Ltd, London, UK
• William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London UK
• Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
• Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford

Have fabricated data? Pretty bold claim and a pretty big scandal if true. Any evidence that they have fabricated this data?

I’m sticking to my view thanks. I work on frontline. I see for myself how things are and when I see double jabbed, even triple jabbed people, catch Covid with my own set of eyes, I don’t need statisticians or boffs, who’ve probably never set foot in a healthcare setting and got their hands dirty, to tell me what is what, or you.

[mrmistoffelees]

Boris to hold 5pm Downing Street press conference, COBRA also meeting today.

Imho we’ve got more restrictions and/or guidance incoming.

---------- Post added at 13:13 ---------- Previous post was at 13:09 ----------

If we were to get more guidance/restrictions I’d think we would move inline with Scotland ?

I really wish they would stop changing it every week. If you are going to introduce restrictions over Christmas announce them now, not every few days escalate it because you keep getting caught out.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Damien

I really wish they would stop changing it every week. If you are going to introduce restrictions over Christmas announce them now, not every few days escalate it because you keep getting caught out.

Actually on second thoughts, I don’t think there will be further restrictions one of the reasons for the absolute spanking of a rebellion was due to the fact that the proposals didn’t go before MP’s first

I think it’s going to be ‘get your booster’ and pp slides of omicron rate of spread


Q’s from journos could get interesting mind

I think getting caught out is unfair mind you. He’s trying to react to a constantly changing threat

He can’t win, tighten restrictions too much and there will be calls of project fear, don’t do enough on restrictions…..

I kinda feel sorry for him, he’s still a massive helmet mind you

[jfman]

He could advise people on what he thinks is a good idea without changing any regulations.

I don’t think he will necessarily, but the MPs part doesn’t preclude him from painting a grim picture and telling people to use their judgement.

[nffc]

IMHO now - or indeed before Christmas - isn't the time to make any more restrictions.


First of all, people won't want to have Christmas ruined, yesterday was the last day you could catch covid and not have to isolate for Christmas, so you'd expect a lot of people would start limiting their contacts if they're bothered about that.


The booster roll out, which is the answer, is possible - anyone can now book (if the NHS site will let them) and go to a walk in centre, the more boosters given out the harder it is for the virus to spread anyway.


Plan B measures aren't the answer, if they want to stop it they won't go hard enough, but given some people have to work and people still have to shop even a lockdown might not slow it down enough. But they will help. Office workers not having to go into the office will limit their contacts especially if they have to use PT to get there, passports probably won't do a lot, masks probably won't do a great deal either, but both will probably still help slow it down. And we will need to see this in for a week at the least to see if there is an effect or not.



Short of introducing further curbs on hospitality - which will probably suffer anyway as people elect not to go - such as distancing tables, table service or indeed closing it, or other indoor mixing such as rule of 6 (which is incredibly difficult to enforce and would be a bit of an own goal given the backlash to the party measures) there aren't much more options he can go down anyway.



If the focus has - as it should be - not shifted from the healthcare situation, then this is pretty stable. According to the data site, all three measures have fluctuated to a minor degree but in general have remained level since about the middle of July. We are potentially now around the time where you would see Omicron infections presenting to hospital (if they are going to) which doesn't yet appear to be causing a serious surge, but we don't know that isn't going to happen yet, and it's one of those things where if it does happen it happens before you notice it. So they are entirely right to say there is a risk because they don't know there isn't yet and slow things down for now. This needs time to work, and won't work as well as going full on it (the best thing right now to stop the virus would be to order a 2 week lockdown - but this will have other effects, and anyway hasn't always worked in other cases) so the current compromise seems to make sense.


They will be pushing the boosters because it's the only real way out of it. Restrictions ultimately have to come off quickly as they can and if they do before enough have been boosted then they will just get a spike in infections again. Of course, they do need to work on their side too (there aren't currently any walk in centres in Notts offering boosters) in regards to the capacity and availability but this is probably still being looked into. It strikes me he announced all of that before a lot of the work had been finished.