Coronavirus Thread

[Guest Col city fan]

7 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

With draconian restrictions in place.  Point being restrictions don't reduce the figures.  

What draconian restrictions? Wtf you talking about?

[st albans fox]

7 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Exactly.  There are loads of factors that move the figures around, and restrictions appear to be only a minor one - hence Wales cases have gone up and up since July and England's much less so, even though Wales has kept the legal duty to wear masks (though I don't know how well it has been observed).

 

But the real reason why Wales' cases, and Cornwall's for that matter, have rocketed is because they didn't get it so badly first time out.  Leaving more scope to get it now.  Regardless of waning immunity either of vaccine or of natural immunity from actually getting the disease, there must be some benefit to future health if you catch the virus and survive it.  Your immune system doesn't forget completely.

 

Take a look at the government map of cases on the coronavirus count page.  Which areas have the lowest rates at present?  Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Manchester, Liverpool. the Bolton-Blackburn-Burnley industrial belt, Hull, Leicester, Nottingham, Birmingham, Oxford, London.  All the places that had it worst earlier.  (Also the south east and bits of Wales, as outliers.)  My point being that it appears - and further investigation by the powers-that-be is no doubt being made at all times (one would hope) - that this virus spread fastest where the conditions were best for spreading, ie. densely populated cities, and spread slower in other areas.  BUT - this doesn't mean other areas got away with it.  It just means their cases came later.  It spreads more slowly, but it gets there in the end.

 

And that leads to the idea - not a conclusion, but an idea- that (coupled with your observation about Singapore) the virus is going to hit you in the end.  It's would suggest that perhaps all lockdown does is prolong the agony - if you're going to catch it, you're going to catch it unless you hide for ever.  When you bear in mind that out of 3 million confirmed cases in the last three months (and who knows how many unconfirmed, but I believe the statistical approach reckons about double that) only 1 in 300 has died, the statistical evidence for lockdown is pretty flimsy.  

Lots of us pointed this out over a year ago - but the argument is that the longer you delay the outbreak the more science catches up with the virus and various treatments are available. 
 

the more we catch it across society, the more able we become to withstand it as it circulates - that’s what’s going to be the end game.

 

my own view is that we are getting to a stage where PCR’s should only be used for confirmation of a positive LFT.  And if positive, once your LFT is negative, you should be allowed out of your isolation.  Too many people are unwilling to isolate for ten days so some won’t bother at all. If they knew it would only be for a week at most then they would be more likely to engage.  
 

 

13 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

What draconian restrictions? Wtf you talking about?

He means in Singapore (but I wouldn’t call those ‘draconian’ ) 

[Soup]

53 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

What draconian restrictions? Wtf you talking about?

From what he posted I'm guessing he meant these, 

 

'But Singapore have 84% double vaccinated most of the most vulnerable triple jabbed, masks indoors and outdoors.  Vax passports, limits to household mixing'

Edited 22 October 2021 by Soup

[Stivo]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

my own view is that we are getting to a stage where PCR’s should only be used for confirmation of a positive LFT.  And if positive, once your LFT is negative, you should be allowed out of your isolation.  Too many people are unwilling to isolate for ten days so some won’t bother at all. If they knew it would only be for a week at most then they would be more likely to engage.

It’s actually debatable whether PCRs should be used for this.  If you get a positive LFT followed by a negative PCR then I understand that it is more likely that it’s a false negative PCR than a false positive LFT.

 

 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Stivo said:

It’s actually debatable whether PCRs should be used for this.  If you get a positive LFT followed by a negative PCR then I understand that it is more likely that it’s a false negative PCR than a false positive LFT.

Jury is out on that ……

[Munshi]

16 hours ago, Parafox said:

 

 

So, by your logic, as Free Falling Foxes said, your "Sod everyone else" attitude I want to live my life, is the way to go to help our population? You're IMO selfish. So, yes we've had the vaccine, that's not a cure. The Gov can't invest in the NHS for the sole purpose of dealing with a mass outbreak of any virus. Budgets have to be managed. I imagine, and I may be very wrong, but the "younger generation" such as you (maybe) have a "live now, pay later" mentality and if it impacts on others, so what? I want it all and I want it now, to quote the Queen song.

Sometimes one has to bite the bullet and behave responsibly for the greater good of others.

FWIW there has been no suggestion of mass isolation or going back to lockdown as seen before. Just wearing masks, sanitising hands, working from home, keeping your distance etc. If that's too much for you then maybe you'll be better off staying home watching TV, playing your PS or XBox and not risking infection or being a carrier, while the rest of us go about our business whilst being responsible.

Remember, the vaccine does NOT prevent you catching or carrying the virus or passing it on.

So why does everyone give a shit if other people have taken it or not? 

[Stivo]

7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Jury is out on that ……

It’s just maths.  LFRs are pretty good at not generating false positives - PHE estimate 0.03% false positives.  The problem is that they have a high false negative perhaps 30%. PCRs have  a false negative of about 5%.
 

If the prevalence of people taking LFR tests is 1% then for a million people there  are 10,000 with covid.  The LFRs will find 7000 and throw up 300 false positives.   The PCR will detect these but will in turn fail give a negative for 350 of the people with covid.  So if you have a positive LFR followed by a negative PCR it’s a toss up whether you have covid or not. 

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, Stivo said:

It’s just maths.  LFRs are pretty good at not generating false positives - PHE estimate 0.03% false positives.  The problem is that they have a high false negative perhaps 30%. PCRs have  a false negative of about 5%.
 

If the prevalence of people taking LFR tests is 1% then for a million people there  are 10,000 with covid.  The LFRs will find 7000 and throw up 300 false positives.   The PCR will detect these but will in turn fail give a negative for 350 of the people with covid.  So if you have a positive LFR followed by a negative PCR it’s a toss up whether you have covid or not. 

If you had a positive LFT and a negative PCR to follow then, if your LFT is still positive, you should have to take another PCR. As you say, LFT’s are not often  false positive 

[Spudulike]

24 minutes ago, Munshi said:

So why does everyone give a shit if other people have taken it or not? 

 

11 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

Exactly, they shouldn't. It's people taking the moral high ground. 

Is it not true that an unvaccinated person is much more likely to get covid than a vaccinated person? 

 

If it is true, then an unvaccinated person is not only more likely to get Covid but also more likely to spread it to all others. 

 

Moral high ground 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

I wasn't talking about the science, I was saying that vaccinated people shouldn't look down on those who haven't been. Taking a vaccine or not doesn't define anything about who someone is as a person. 

 

I've got friends and family members who are fully vaccinated, not vaccinated at all and some somewhere in between - does it change what I think about them? No, not in the slightest. 

That is of course a persons prerogative.

 

Those who are at direct threat from Covid and cannot get vaccinated themselves, for whatever reason (eg. the immunocompromised) might feel differently and I would argue their value judgement about someone who might put them in personal danger is entirely justified.

[Suzie the Fox]

Never stopped using my mask or washing my hands when I return home. I’m double jabbed and will have the booster when it’s available. I do that for me and for others. 
 

no moral high ground at all. 

[Spudulike]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That is of course a persons prerogative.

 

Those who are at direct threat from Covid and cannot get vaccinated themselves, for whatever reason (eg. the immunocompromised) might feel differently and I would argue their value judgement about someone who might put them in personal danger is entirely justified.

Not only those in that group but also those that have received full vaccination but are still in danger, albeit less so. 

[Spudulike]

16 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

I wasn't talking about the science, I was saying that vaccinated people shouldn't look down on those who haven't been. Taking a vaccine or not doesn't define anything about who someone is as a person. 

 

I've got friends and family members who are fully vaccinated, not vaccinated at all and some somewhere in between - does it change what I think about them? No, not in the slightest. 

I would argue that it says quite a lot. 

[Nod.E]

17 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

I wasn't talking about the science, I was saying that vaccinated people shouldn't look down on those who haven't been. Taking a vaccine or not doesn't define anything about who someone is as a person. 

 

I've got friends and family members who are fully vaccinated, not vaccinated at all and some somewhere in between - does it change what I think about them? No, not in the slightest. 

I will judge people for not getting vaccinated. Deal with it.

[Nod.E]

2 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

How and why? 

Not difficult is it. Basically everyone being hospitalised (see also, keeping us in this mess) are unvaccinated. 

 

Those that can't see that are therefore a sandwich short of a picnic.

[Nod.E]

1 minute ago, pmcla26 said:

Okay, a bit narrow minded - but each to their own. 

 

It's a bit like a vegan judging someone for eating meat, or a non-smoker judging a smoker - can't you make judgement over things that actually are the makeup of who one is as a being? You know, like morals, honesty, respect, selflessness? 

I judge smokers, too. It's stupid.

 

I reserve the right to observe stupidity and call it out.

[Munshi]

1 minute ago, Nod.E said:

Not difficult is it. Basically everyone being hospitalised (see also, keeping us in this mess) are unvaccinated. 

 

Those that can't see that are therefore a sandwich short of a picnic.

Where have you got this from? Most the people I know who have been ill in in the past with Covid have been vaccinated.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

That is completely understandable for those at risk, but if we're talking generally (which I was with my comment) then I think that the point I was making is fair, do you not? I wouldn't want to be judged on my vaccination status and therefore I don't judge others for theirs. You gotta do what you feel is right - like I say, doesn't make you a better or worse person in my eyes. Everyone's situation is different. 

 

That everyone's personal situation is different is certainly true, agreed there. In light of that, I'd say that anyone is free to judge as they see fit.

 

NB. As per above,  we are rather lucky that this global crisis allows us the luxury of being able to pass such judgements and therefore act in a disjointed way towards it. The next one might not be so indulgent - and in that case,  there will have to be value judgements for those who won't help solve it.

 

 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Munshi said:

Where have you got this from? Most the people I know who have been ill in in the past with Covid have been vaccinated.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1256999/number-covid-hospitalizations-canada-by-vaccination-status/

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2306

 

It's reasonably conclusive that the majority of hospitalisations for covid all over the world are among the unvaccinated.

Edited 22 October 2021 by leicsmac

[Spudulike]

7 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

How and why? 

I'd have thought it was obvious. Being unvaccinated leads to a greater risk to others. Does that not suggest something to you about that person's character? 

 

Being nice and kind does not prevent a person from being more of a danger to others if unvaccinated. 

[CosbehFox]

 

[Nod.E]

7 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

So, going off of your last two posts, as a single dose vaccinated person (that doesn't want the second dose and booster) who is also a smoker, despite knowing nothing else about me, you think I am someone "keeping us in this mess" with regards to COVID, and that I'm "stupid"? 

 

Just seems totally absurd to judge someone in such a way, in my eyes.

Some people just want to puff away on cancer sticks and refuse help from the medical profession. 

 

Be my guest. But when it causes others to fall ill and lose their liberties, that's when I'll call you out on it. 

[reynard]

16 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

So, going off of your last two posts, as a single dose vaccinated person (that doesn't want the second dose and booster) who is also a smoker, despite knowing nothing else about me, you think I am someone "keeping us in this mess" with regards to COVID, and that I'm "stupid"? 

 

Just seems totally absurd to judge someone in such a way, in my eyes.

Apologies if I have misunderstood your situation but I can't see any logic behind someone having the first jab and not the second when it is the second one that is key to giving better protection for not only the vaccinated person but other people too?

[Spudulike]

3 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

No, not at all. I tend to look at someone's character through my own personal dealings with them rather than a needle in the arm. 

That, I have to say, is a very simplistic viewpoint. Just a needle in the arm, is that all it is  Blimey. 

[Nod.E]

18 minutes ago, Munshi said:

Where have you got this from? Most the people I know who have been ill in in the past with Covid have been vaccinated.

Ah, the 'people I know' argument. Believe it or not, people you know are not necessarily representative of the population. Try to think beyond your own bubble. Remember as well that most people you know probably have been vaccinated, thereby increasing the odds that anyone you know to have experienced symptoms will have been jabbed.

 

R.e. deaths, It's literally proven by the ONS. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween2januaryand2july2021

 

Hospitalisations: Sky news article. Three quarters of under 50s in hospital with Covid are unvaccinated. Bear in mind of course that that's statistically significant given many more people are vaccinated than aren't, and so it's an overwhelmingly over-represented group.