Coronavirus

Great when people are going about there usual business, a bit redundant when people are already supposed to be in lockdown.
I really think it's more PR (statistics was probably a bad choice of words but brought about by the "look how many we tested" mentality).

Sorry, it's just my feeling/opinion. I answer you honestly because you are a good poster, with most i wouldn't bother or maybe take the piss.

 

The rules were the same for all, social distancing.

 

Social distancing is for healthy people. Isolation is for sick people.

 

Correct, now your'e getting it

 

I think our lockdown is a mixed bag. Some places are still closed others are open and there's no doubt people are blurring the lines. Also bear in mind that places like Germany and South Korea went into lockdown a lot earlier but still carried out the mass testing. Look at it another way, even if all it does is identify more people wiyth corona who otherwise wouldn't have been, they will know they've had it. It also means those people can go back to work, open their businesses etc.

The statistics thing "look how many we tested" is largely down to Hancock making a rod for his own back tbh. Why make these claims if as you say an arbitrary number of 100k means fck all. It's no surprise that ppl will pick him up on it because he's made a statement many questioned to begin with and there was no need for it. I'll tell you my thinking about it - it's just another plastic disingenuous load of bollox among a string of plastic disingenuous load of bollox from him because he sees it as about how he looks rather than the people. It is that, not the 100k which I'm tugging at with the likes of Hancock. That's me being honest mate not an attempt to wum anyone, just how I see it. I'd rather he said nowt and showed his capability through his actions. But if we put that to one side, the stuff I'm saying about mass testing is nothing to do with that. I want to look at that objectively

 

I think that was driven by people like many on this site, Ooo these have tested this many and we have only tested that many, so we differ there.

As for the "people will know they have had it", does that mean they can no longer carry it and pass it on? serious question as i have heard nothing of this nature.

 

The test in itself won't be able to say someone has had it prior to the test, but it will catch more people who will be going through it unaware, so in that sense once they're clear they will at least know they've had it. In terms of no longer carrying it and passing it on or getting it again... I don't know mate tbh but if Boris can go back to work there must be some science to say others can. But look at this way, if that's something we're going to worry about then we're never going to come out of lockdown are we. As things stand what the science tells us and what we know about passing it on after the all-clear is what we stick to in terms of timeframes for ppl to return to work. If new evidence comes out to say otherwise we'll have to follow that.

It also shows why countries who did this early are probably going to have more success with it then those who started it late. If you start early you've got more chance of catching more people with it. You mass test much later and you've probably missed a significant amount of the population who have had it and now won't know they have. IF that applies to us I still think we should make the best of it though, and however little/more it helps it's still worth doing imo.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...for-satisfying-curiosity-but-no-more-11991793

Science

 

I can appreciate Superdrug's position and advice here regarding a product they're retailing but in terms of wider national strategy this is where I would want some direction from the CMO and the government. As it says, they themselves are buying up another antigen test, so lets wait and see what they have to say on it and how they plan to use it.

 

Dr Simon Clarke, associate professor in cellular microbiology at the University of Reading, outlined downsides.

"These tests are good for satisfying people's curiosity, but no more. We just don't know enough about what it takes to make someone immune to COVID-19 to accurately test people," professor Clarke said.

Professor Gino Martini, chief scientific officer at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, added: "Any antibody test at present can only provide a partial picture.

"The real issue is that no one knows the level of immunity that is conferred by having antibodies to coronavirus, how long it might last, and if you can become re-infected."

 

I did read it

I could've quoted - Martin Hibberd, professor of emerging infectious disease at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said that, because the tests have not been evaluated in the format that they are being used, their sensitivity and specificity is unclear.

But I thought against it

Take that statement by Prof Martini you quoted to its natural conclusion then. Just because the test doesn't tell us about reinfections or how long someone one remains clear we can never ease the lockdown until we get that guarantee? That position is untenable surely. Which is why we need guidance from the CMO at a strategic level rather than the pharmaceuticals industry giving us their perspective on it.

Btw we've drifted onto antigen tests and to one aspect of testing here. I have given more purpose of our current testing than just this

 

I know all that mate, just harping on my "testing for testings sake" theory

 

Oh true I know you are and I get it, we're all cynical in our own ways.

Anyway what do you expect from a teacher.... we love "testing for testings sake"

 

Overpaid ponces flaunting their wealth as they rock up in brand new Range Rovers to play in empty stadiums? Clubs - especially those outside the PL - on the verge of bankruptcy, non playing staff an unfortunate embarrassment? Nah, **** all that. It’s not good at all.

 

Because we are governed by idiots, who have never had a handle on this, nor any sort of coherent plan, from day one.

 

I’m suggesting you take your head out of your arse and have a look at how badly let down this country has been by it’s supposed leaders.

 

There is a suspicion that they are treating the nasal and throat swabs as two tests and including tests sent to universities for research into what kills the virus.

 

Agreed..........If Corbyn had ****ed before the election(like he should of done) and let Starmer take over could we have had a
different election result?...Not saying labour would have won,but it would of been a lot closer imo.