Mutating Corona Virus

[cjcregg]

1 hour ago, honeybee13 said:

...and today his son was trying to tell people to be sensible.

 

I can't believe they're opening pubs again on a Saturday - and from 6am! What are they expecting to happen, are we back to herd immunity?

 

There are about 45,000 pubs in England employing many times that number. The pub industry is already on it's knees, they need a break.

[cjcregg]

11 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Yes they do deserve a break, but how do they plan to keep people safe?

 

I assume that's a rhetorical question and while I understand the sentiment, the country cannot survive on virtue alone.

 

What do you suggest the Government does? Continue to borrow huge sums of money to bail the industry out indefinitely?

 

 

[cjcregg]

7 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

I would like the government to behave with some professionalism and to have a plan to keep people safe in pubs and restaurants as far as possible.

 

What I'm seeing is mixed messages and that never helps.

They have got a plan https://www.gov.uk/guidance/working-safely-during-coronavirus-covid-19/restaurants-offering-takeaway-or-delivery

 

It seems pretty clear to me.

[cjcregg]

15 hours ago, London1971 said:

People a month ago shrieking ‘why didn’t we shut down all flights in February’ 

 

People now, ‘why have the government introduced a quarantine from spain’

 

 

 

Yes and the 'why oh why' culture is alive and well on this thread.

[cjcregg]

17 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Wee Nicola has handled the epidemic reasonably well, I think. Better than no 10 anyway.

 

 

To be fair wee Nicola doesn't have the responsibility of balancing the epidemic with running the economy. In essence the decisions she makes, the rest of the Union pays for.

[cjcregg]

19 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

I wonder if part of the problem is with the PM only wanting to give people good news. I could have missed something, but I don't remember seeing ministers mentioning anything about risks of travelling abroad while the pandemic is still ongoing.

 

The UK banned all travel abroad for months.

 

Remember?

[cjcregg]

7 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

My point was that once restrictions were being lifted, ministers were encouraging people to go abroad if they wanted to but I didn't notice them pointing out possible risks.

 

The advice on the FO site has always said that it's under constant review. The world and his wife knows that signs of spike mean anything can change.

 

 

[cjcregg]

I think you'd have to be pretty irresponsible not to check the FO site before you travel in these uncertain times. You can't spoon-feed everyone who can't be bothered to check.

[cjcregg]

4 hours ago, hightail said:

Quick question.  If you're tested where is that result registered?  Is it at the location of the test or your private address?

 

It goes to whoever commissioned the test, at least at least it has for the 4 tests I've had. Only one of the results was registered on my online medical records though.

[cjcregg]

33 minutes ago, hightail said:

OK, got that.  I guess what I'm interested in is whether you hit the stats as either +ve or -ve in your home area, where you work, where you're tested - or even all of the above.

 

Not sure what you mean by +ve or -ve?

[cjcregg]

15 minutes ago, hightail said:

The result - presumably the result of a test is either positive or negative.  Should I have added the possibility of inconclusive for completeness?  I didn’t think that would matter so much for how the stats work, whether results are counted more than once.

 

 

 

I don't really know but as all my tests were negative I doubt they would need the data down to where you lived etc but I'm sure they counted the tests and results in the overall stats. Having said that 2 of the tests were at NHS hospitals and the other 2 were done at a private hospital so I'm not sure.

[cjcregg]

8 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

Four Covid tests is a lot, CJ, is there a reason for that? I don't know anyone who's had one.

 

I've had several procedures recently as an inpatient. They won't let you in a ward without a negative test result. In fact I've got to have a CT scan at London Bridge hospital as an outpatient and I need a covid test for that, but at least they do it then & there and the result is immediate.

[cjcregg]

8 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Good luck, CJ.

 

Thank you.

[cjcregg]

10 minutes ago, hightail said:

Surely it does matter for deciding on the need for local restrictions if people are tested outside the area they live.  

 

The need for local restrictions would be based on the number of positive tests, not negative. 

[cjcregg]

It must be the home address that counts, otherwise how do they measure infection rates in local areas? - it'll be linked to from here probably https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-testing-data-methodology/covid-19-testing-data-methodology-note

Edited August 4, 2020 by cjcregg

[cjcregg]

[cjcregg]

Is there any evidence that mass speculative testing is an effective strategy in reducing transmission?

[cjcregg]

8 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

 

I don't think there is.

 

For my part I'm talking about targeted testing and tracing that's done locally. Speculative testing sounds like the Deloitte type car park testing centres who then don't send test results to local public health people who are able to act promptly if they're informed, or at best sent to them too late to be of any use.

 

I meant what the Children's Commissioner was calling for i.e. all school children being tested. Whether that's defined as targeted or not it's a ridiculous suggestion even given the lack of evidence that it would actually work.

 

The UK has achieved 13m processed tests so far in about the last 6 months. England alone has 8m school children and the Children's Commissioner wants them tested every week. 

[cjcregg]

2 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Agreed about it being politics and foreigner bashing.

 

 

 

So you actually believe that the decision to put some countries on the quarentine list is because the UK Government wants to be seen to bash foreiners? 

 

 

[cjcregg]

14 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

 

I'm afraid I wouldn't rule it out. Brexiters are looking for people to blame rather than themselves and foreigners are often fair game.

 

So you're telling me you wouldn't rule it out but agreeing with others it's true without qualification. Hardly objective.

 

There is no evidence it's true and not even Labour are suggesting it. Like I say, opinions are fine but they are worthless unlesss they have at least some factual basis.

 

Germany put Spain on their quarentine list yesterday, are you blaming that on Brexiteers too?

[cjcregg]

13 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

This is such a sad story and a terrible example of misinformation onlne.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53892856

 

Yeah just like when people say that imposing quarantine restrictions isn't for public health reasons but because the Government wants to bash foreigners.

[cjcregg]

5 hours ago, hightail said:

Lid kept on or not I think he's done.  Herd immunity has to be the aim surely, if not why the race for a vaccine? 

Not sure I understand. Vaccination is the polar opposite of herd immunity.

 

I can't see Johnson going anywhere myself.

[cjcregg]

8 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

My understanding is that herd immunity can be achieved if there's an effective vaccine, cj.

 

I'm talking about the policy of herd immunity,  you know the one that most people here think was (and still is according to our resident Calvin Klein), that the Government allows the virus to spread to a large proportion of the population.  That's an entirely different strategy to vaccination.  

[cjcregg]

16 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

 

But aren't they meant to achieve the same thing by making the population immune? 

 

That they achieve the same thing is irrelevant to my point.    

[cjcregg]

31 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

Which point please?

 

I don't know how many different ways I can say it but a herd immunity policy (allow people to get infected) and a vaccination policy (prevent people from getting infected) are self-evidently opposing strategies. That they may achieve the same broad outcomes (not withstanding that many more people will die with herd immunity) is irrelevant to that consideration. 

 

Is that clear enough for you?