Off Topic Coronavirus

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
ELLERS said:
They are not but surely you would agree that people warm to charismatic people like Boris. I remember that during the election a poll was done on what women thought of the 2 leaders and Boris was something like 80-90% more popular than Corbyn.
Click to expand...

You’re completely backing up his point.
 
Here in Oz, they have just relaxed the laws a little to allow us to wander up to 50klms from our place of residence.

I’m about 45 klms from the New South Wales border and the Gestapo have stated that anyone flouting the law with feel their wrath.

The youth in me wants to test them so l might get Mrs Squat to pack the Beemer with a picnic lunch so we can sit by a river some 51 klms away and tell the world to get stuffed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr
Didley Squat said:
Here in Oz, they have just relaxed the laws a little to allow us to wander up to 50klms from our place of residence.

I’m about 45 klms from the New South Wales border and the Gestapo have stated that anyone flouting the law with feel their wrath.

The youth in me wants to test them so l might get Mrs Squat to pack the Beemer with a picnic lunch so we can sit by a river some 51 klms away and tell the world to get stuffed.
Click to expand...

Dumb question maybe but how do they judge the 50km? As the crow flies or you’d have to travel?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Didley Squat
mmm interesting comments from Leadsom re-testing/care homes. She said what I did the other day in that the government's priority on testing was NHS staff and then others after. We simply didn't have the capacity to test all.
mmm not sure how well that will go down?
 
ELLERS said:
mmm interesting comments from Leadsom re-testing/care homes. She said what I did the other day in that the government's priority on testing was NHS staff and then others after. We simply didn't have the capacity to test all.
mmm not sure how well that will go down?
Click to expand...

Given you’re her adviser that’s not really a surprise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobmid, NigsyHoops and Staines R's
Just spoken to my neighbour (they were trying to sell there house but have given up, and now live in their new home, so haven't seen her since before Xmas).
She went home to Australia for Christmas, and came back to England in early January with a "cold/cough" that sounds just like Covid. High fever, cough...it last near a month, she gave it to her husband, but her two young kids seemed unaffected. This is not an isolated tale either.

I really believe the timings we have been told are somewhat wrong.
We have had it a long time. I wonder how many people died before lockdown too
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr, NigsyHoops and Didley Squat
Goldhawk-Road said:
You're involved in the health business, Stan, and know the nuances of public and private interaction. But it seems to me, the general principle is that private care homes act autonomously outside a pandemic situation. I can't see why government should be responsible for the way private companies act, beyond enacting and enforcing any mandatory regulations passed by Parliament where there is a need for care providers to keep extra stock for emergency situations.
Click to expand...

and cause apparently some of the ppe was requisitioned from the private care homest for the nhs
 
qprbeth said:
Just spoken to my neighbour (they were trying to sell there house but have given up, and now live in their new home, so haven't seen her since before Xmas).
She went home to Australia for Christmas, and came back to England in early January with a "cold/cough" that sounds just like Covid. High fever, cough...it last near a month, she gave it to her husband, but her two young kids seemed unaffected. This is not an isolated tale either.

I really believe the timings we have been told are somewhat wrong.
We have had it a long time. I wonder how many people died before lockdown too
Click to expand...
On your last point, even if people were dying before lockdown, it wasn’t showing up as ‘excess deaths’, as we were at or below the 5 year average according to the ONS until well into March. So if we have had it a long time and lots of people might have had it before ‘it’ was an epidemic, that could be a good thing. I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CroydonCaptainJack, kiwiqpr and Staines R's
Early indications are that we'll not be coming out of lockdown next week.....the required indices are still too high......

Also saw mentioned yesterday that a report suggests that those who can WFH should continue until at least September....
 
qprbeth said:
Just spoken to my neighbour (they were trying to sell there house but have given up, and now live in their new home, so haven't seen her since before Xmas).
She went home to Australia for Christmas, and came back to England in early January with a "cold/cough" that sounds just like Covid. High fever, cough...it last near a month, she gave it to her husband, but her two young kids seemed unaffected. This is not an isolated tale either.

I really believe the timings we have been told are somewhat wrong.
We have had it a long time. I wonder how many people died before lockdown too
Click to expand...
Beth I have been bleating on about this when people have been moaning about the lateness of the lockdown. It was happening before.
 
ELLERS said:
Beth I have been bleating on about this when people have been moaning about the lateness of the lockdown. It was happening before.
Click to expand...

So we should have started earlier then Ellers...absolutely my point.
Even if it was there earlier (it was hard to "recognise" possible at the very early points I am happy to admit BUT...if we had only started soon after it became apparent that it was devasting northern Italy, we would have saved lives
 
  • Like
Reactions: pompeymeowth, SW Ranger, kiwiqpr and 1 other person
qprbeth said:
So we should have started earlier then Ellers...absolutely my point.
Even if it was there earlier (it was hard to "recognise" possible at the very early points I am happy to admit BUT...if we had only started soon after it became apparent that it was devasting northern Italy, we would have saved lives
Click to expand...
Well, I'm sure will be discussed after. We obviously didn't test back then for Covid-19 so unless there are any blood samples still about it won't help us?
 
qprbeth said:
So we should have started earlier then Ellers...absolutely my point.
Even if it was there earlier (it was hard to "recognise" possible at the very early points I am happy to admit BUT...if we had only started soon after it became apparent that it was devasting northern Italy, we would have saved lives
Click to expand...
That would have meant boris attending cobra meetings! We all know it wasnt taken seriously, purely by his absence. Oh his buffonery forgives him. What a character he is chortle chortle
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willhoops
ELLERS said:
This could be promising although the company name doesn't fill me with optimism :) (I think I got away with that).
Coronavirus: New antibody test with 99 per cent accuracy approved for use across Europe
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...l-news-europe-uk-accuracy-abbot-a9490026.html
Click to expand...


I set up tests ...it still worries me me. (even though it is from Abbott who are a re pretty good diagnostic company)

It is to do with the specificity or sensitivity of the tests. There is a very important difference. There test is 99% sensitive....but no mention of specificity

SENSITIVITY: The true positive rate, is the number of real positives that are picked up in a test
SPECIFICITY: This is the proportion of the real negatives that are picked up. ...Inversely it means how many false positives are there

You can set up any test to get the "results you want". So set the criteria for testing positive very high. You pick up 70% of positives and no false "positives" you can be sure if you get a positive , it is right...but you miss 30% of positives...BAD... But the specificity is 100%...because a positive is positive (100% correct)

Set it up another way...very low cut-off...you get all the positives, butsay you get 40% of the healthy population (who really don't have the disease) as positivity. The sensitivity is then 100%, everyone who has a positive test has the virus/antibody. But 40% of the population think they have the virus/antibody but don't.

Intuitively you think the second criteria is good... But actually for the antibody test it is not...really it is not.

So you give those people a knowledge (or a paper passport) that they have had the virus, and they have antibodies that protect them and they don't...You send them off into the wide world to catch the virus. Think of putting a nurse back onto a Covid ward with the knowledge she was safe ...and she wasn't. She had a cough...but it was not CoVid, because she had had a positive antibody test

This is apparently what happened with the China kit...low cut off...loads of positives in the kit...but a lot of them were "false" positives
 
  • Like
Reactions: KooPeeArr and kiwiqpr
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back