Coronavirus

[Comrade 86]

4 minutes ago, Archied said:

Yep certainly was , personally I believe that was massively out of kilter and perhaps Sweden bears that out?

Yeah I guess to an extent but they seem to be wavering now. We shouldn't forget that we adopted a no-lockdown, herd immunity approach initially and it certainly wasn't working for us. Lockdowns save lives and I think we need to ask ourselves whether our opinion would be the same had we lost a family member or two as a lot of people have. I guess it's pointless bashing the government for mistakes already made but they really need to be spot on with their strategy from here on out. 

[richinspain]

35 minutes ago, RamNut said:

The current testing regime will not deliver results quickly enough to ever be meaningful, and without widespread testing the app is pretty much worthless. And with new passengers arriving every day, we just haven’t got a grip on this at all. Anything else is spin, and bs.

As @Eddie pointed out, with testing even at 100k per day, it would take 2 years to test everyone just once.

The current test is too complex and too slow for mass screening, and the numbers are limited by laboratory capacity. 

as @B4ev6is said, we need something faster with almost instant results.

the surescreen-type tester might just do that, with results within 10 minutes, and no demand on specialist labs. 

it may not be as accurate as a lab test (who knows?), but if positive results lead to targeted isolation, and confirmation by lab test then we would soon get accurate data on the accuracy of the quick test, and get a much better understanding of the spread of the virus.

Half a million people in Derby and Derbyshire could be tested every week. Everyone would be tested within two weeks.

every passenger wishing to fly in or out of an airport could be tested in the time it takes to check in the baggage.

A positive result should be verified by a repeat test, and lead to compulsory self-isolation if there is another positive result.

everyone else could then enjoy greater freedoms with some degree of confidence.

 

 

I realise that a 100% effective test is impossible, but what ideally should the accuracy be? At 60% 2 out of every 5 tests would be erroneous. Are they positive or negative erroneous? Even at 80% effective that would be 1 in 5! Even this, with large numbers and quick turnaround, would be better than certainly what we have over here.

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, RamNut said:

The current testing regime will not deliver results quickly enough to ever be meaningful, and without widespread testing the app is pretty much worthless. And with new passengers arriving every day, we just haven’t got a grip on this at all. Anything else is spin, and bs.

As @Eddie pointed out, with testing even at 100k per day, it would take 2 years to test everyone just once.

The current test is too complex and too slow for mass screening, and the numbers are limited by laboratory capacity. 

as @B4ev6is said, we need something faster with almost instant results.

the surescreen-type tester might just do that, with results within 10 minutes, and no demand on specialist labs. 

it may not be as accurate as a lab test (who knows?), but if positive results lead to targeted isolation, and confirmation by lab test then we would soon get accurate data on the accuracy of the quick test, and get a much better understanding of the spread of the virus.

Half a million people in Derby and Derbyshire could be tested every week. Everyone would be tested within two weeks.

every passenger wishing to fly in or out of an airport could be tested in the time it takes to check in the baggage.

A positive result should be verified by a repeat test, and lead to compulsory self-isolation if there is another positive result.

everyone else could then enjoy greater freedoms with some degree of confidence.

Don't take this question the wrong way, but are you an expert in this field?

[Comrade 86]

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Don't take this question the wrong way, but are you an expert in this field?

Thought you lot had had enough of experts ?‍♂️

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Thought you lot had had enough of experts ?‍♂️

Who is 'you lot'?

[Norman]

43 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Who is 'you lot'?

Those of us he holds with as much contempt as his bathroom door hinges. 

[SSD]

Decision to be made this weekend on axing the furlough scheme. I'm being made furloughed next week by my employer, more than likely to be made redundant very soon too. So companies are still making people go on furlough yet the government are potentially axing the scheme. Yet under government rules, you can only start claiming for the scheme if the period is longer than 3 weeks. The scheme ends 1st June I believe. So by my maths, I will receive naff all support and will be essential be on unpaid leave. Surely they'll extend this by at another month, there must be others who still wont go back to work by the end of May? 

This was always going to be the issue, businesses and the government not lining their plans for employees. I cant afford to sit at home for weeks on end unpaid. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

10 hours ago, Andicis said:

Nobody said 20,000 was a worst case scenario though? The real worst case scenarios were talking about 500,000 deaths. Neil Ferguson's prediction was around that high to begin with. The peak was a month ago, the number is still high but it isn't the peak. You would not be arrested for driving somewhere for a walk, it's already been clarified that.

Now is not the time for comparing death rates, it's a pointless task. You're comparing with other countries that count deaths differently, other countries with different population densities, other countries who had it spread in the younger generation as opposed to the older one. There

5 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

I thought we were told that a figure of 20,000 would be best possible and that we would have done very well to achieve that.

are so many factors, being ignorant on the death rate and just claiming it's because we ducked it up ignores so many factors. 

that's not how I recall it when chris whitty was on the briefing at the start . 20,000 was advised as worst projection but first week of lockdown indicated we would be under.  I would have to revisit the briefing to be sure but that would be an all day job to find, so we may have to agree to differ on this one . Obviously everyone hears things different.

[Steve How Hard?]

13 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

that's not how I recall it when chris whitty was on the briefing at the start . 20,000 was advised as worst projection but first week of lockdown indicated we would be under.  I would have to revisit the briefing to be sure but that would be an all day job to find, so we may have to agree to differ on this one . Obviously everyone hears things different.

[maxjam]

21 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

that's not how I recall it when chris whitty was on the briefing at the start . 20,000 was advised as worst projection but first week of lockdown indicated we would be under.  I would have to revisit the briefing to be sure but that would be an all day job to find, so we may have to agree to differ on this one . Obviously everyone hears things different.

You can hear it for yourself here;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/52075063

uncut version here (goes on to say figure is subject to adjustment - bit naughty of the BBC to cut that bit out);

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-under-20000-would-be-good-result-says-health-chief-idUSKBN21F0HV

[Gritstone Ram]

3 hours ago, Paul71 said:

I couldn't quite get my head around it. Right now it is just media talk again, but if true like you say we do need to be told why it hasnt happened before, and what the reasons are for it being the end of May.

 

I think under the current rules that you are not supposed to be going out the quarantine time is indefinite but as soon as the lockdown is relaxed the 2 week quarantine rule will come into force. No one should be out at the moment so anyone flying in should automatically be quarantined.

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Who is 'you lot'?

Swivel-eyed far-right racist Trump-loving 5G-burning Brexiteering corona-denying Tommy Robinson EDL fanboys, of course.

Our lot are the bleeding-heart working-class-hating far-left stalinist pro-antifa remainer pc brigade.

But we are nearly all in the left of centre liberal quadrant on the political compass, so perhaps there is some common ground after all.

[Tamworthram]

57 minutes ago, SouthStandDan said:

Decision to be made this weekend on axing the furlough scheme. I'm being made furloughed next week by my employer, more than likely to be made redundant very soon too. So companies are still making people go on furlough yet the government are potentially axing the scheme. Yet under government rules, you can only start claiming for the scheme if the period is longer than 3 weeks. The scheme ends 1st June I believe. So by my maths, I will receive naff all support and will be essential be on unpaid leave. Surely they'll extend this by at another month, there must be others who still wont go back to work by the end of May? 

This was always going to be the issue, businesses and the government not lining their plans for employees. I cant afford to sit at home for weeks on end unpaid. 

Minor point but, it’s not being axed, it is due to expire. 
 

Hasn’t the scheme been extended until the end of June? In which case you would receive something. I personally think it will be extended further but possibly at a reduced rate.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SouthStandDan said:

Decision to be made this weekend on axing the furlough scheme. I'm being made furloughed next week by my employer, more than likely to be made redundant very soon too. So companies are still making people go on furlough yet the government are potentially axing the scheme. Yet under government rules, you can only start claiming for the scheme if the period is longer than 3 weeks. The scheme ends 1st June I believe. So by my maths, I will receive naff all support and will be essential be on unpaid leave. Surely they'll extend this by at another month, there must be others who still wont go back to work by the end of May? 

This was always going to be the issue, businesses and the government not lining their plans for employees. I cant afford to sit at home for weeks on end unpaid. 

The scheme has been extended until the end of June.

Personally, I think the scheme will be phased out or only extended in certain sectors. Scrapping it for the leisure, hospitality and tourism sectors would be economical suicide.

I think as others have said, in certain areas the furlough scheme has been exploited, it was rolled out for employers who could not afford to pay the wages and would have to make redundancies, but from the outside it just looks like a lot of companies have used it purely to avoid losses rather than not being in a position to carry on paying its employees.

I think the scheme was put together quickly and on the whole has been quite successful as a stop gap but think it is right that the Government tweaks it to ensure it used for the purpose that it was put in place for.

[ariotofmyown]

21 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The scheme has been extended until the end of June.

Personally, I think the scheme will be phased out or only extended in certain sectors. Scrapping it for the leisure, hospitality and tourism sectors would be economical suicide.

I think as others have said, in certain areas the furlough scheme has been exploited, it was rolled out for employers who could not afford to pay the wages and would have to make redundancies, but from the outside it just looks like a lot of companies have used it purely to avoid losses rather than not being in a position to carry on paying its employees.

I think the scheme was put together quickly and on the whole has been quite successful as a stop gap but think it is right that the Government tweaks it to ensure it used for the purpose that it was put in place for.

Government has performed poorly in many places but think they have done well with this. Really think it helps having a Chancellor with solid finance experience behind him.

I'm relatively positive too that this iteration of Tories will deal with the economic fallout much more fairly than Cameron and Osbourne ever did. Not because Johnson is some sort of born-again Socialist, but there isn't any way they can get away with similar austerity measures again. Plus, they didn't really work either as growth was suppressed and the debt barely altered. The economic theory of austerity has shown to be flawed too.

I can actually see Johnson pulling back from Brexit for a bit too. He never really believed in it, is was just a vehicle to get power. I don't think he would be stupid enough to risk that power now with even more short term problems. He might even listen to some of those experts, now they are back in vogue.

[bigbadbob]

20 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Wonder if they considered seeking asylum in Italy or France before setting off for England? Not bad places to live are they?

Tbf France is full of French people. I wouldn't fancy it.

[rammieib]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

The scheme has been extended until the end of June.

Personally, I think the scheme will be phased out or only extended in certain sectors. Scrapping it for the leisure, hospitality and tourism sectors would be economical suicide.

I think as others have said, in certain areas the furlough scheme has been exploited, it was rolled out for employers who could not afford to pay the wages and would have to make redundancies, but from the outside it just looks like a lot of companies have used it purely to avoid losses rather than not being in a position to carry on paying its employees.

I think the scheme was put together quickly and on the whole has been quite successful as a stop gap but think it is right that the Government tweaks it to ensure it used for the purpose that it was put in place for.

You’re right but it’s a tough one. Our business has seen an order book drop of 15% for Q2/Q3. We can’t sustain the same labour costs for those quarters and this furlough has been used. We’ve stayed open and continue to do our best and improve cash flow in the obvious business areas.

In some sectors furlough is black and white. A car manufacturing company closes for two months or a dentist closes due to Government rules etc. They have an on and off switch.

For my company we don’t (I’m purposely not saying who I work for) have this on/off switch but if furlough allows a percentage of our workforce to get 2 additional months of pay cheques when being made redundant right now is quite possibly the worst time ever, then I’m all for it.

I actually think Rishi needs to find ways to stop companies making people redundant. Don’t ask me what that idea is - I read something about if an employee drops to a three day week the Gov could pay for the other two days and so on. I know that’s fraught with difficulties but a lot of emphasis right now is on short term protection, I think very little is being done on long term employment.

[RamNut]

4 hours ago, richinspain said:

I realise that a 100% effective test is impossible, but what ideally should the accuracy be? At 60% 2 out of every 5 tests would be erroneous. Are they positive or negative erroneous? Even at 80% effective that would be 1 in 5! Even this, with large numbers and quick turnaround, would be better than certainly what we have over here.

The claim for the quick test is:

Quote

We conducted a clinical study in Wuhan, China, where we compared the test cassette to conventional laboratory tests for COVID-19 diagnosis, which also detected the presence of IgG/IgM in 902 blood samples. We obtained the following results:

Sensitivity > 91%

Specificity > 99%

Accuracy > 97%

in other words, 902 patients with a positive lab test result for covid 19, also tested positive for immunoglobulin g and immunoglobulin m as part of their immune response.

The accuracy of the quick test could be verified by further checking.

The strategy of a more generic molecular testing for immune system response has scientific support - see below:

Quote

Perhaps screening all staff and testing all preoperative elective patients for the presence of virus through molecular testing would help minimize a second spike in disease. Many believe that testing for the presence of antibodies on a widespread scale could help drive evidence-based decision-making, both on an individual and societal scale. Much information, and an equal amount of misinformation, has been produced on antibody testing. We believe that there is real value in such immune response testing,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7184973/

So this test would show whether your body is making a significant immune response to something. And that would be a useful preliminary test before lab testing for covid 19 as the specific cause.

Quote

Another type of test assesses the development of the immune response to the virus in patients by detecting the presence of 3 types of antibodies (eg, IgG, IgM, and IgA) that the body produces in response to the infection. Immune response tests do not achieve the same detection rate as viral genome diagnoses in early infection....but.....they will be essential in the event of a secondary recurrence of the virus in the community. Because the viral genome is no longer detectable after patient recovery, immune status and the status of a given population related to their ability to contract or resist infection will be based on their antibody status. This type of test is a serological (blood) test and documents the presence of antibodies produced by the immune system against SARS-CoV-2. Tests...require only finger rick blood samples. Given the nature of these tests and the current need to ramp up testing, the United States Food and Drug Administration has been granting Emergency Use Authorization for testing.

So....let’s follow this strategy too and get on with it.

those with no immune response are likely to be ok. Repeat testing say every month would be possible, but once we have traced the virus, we can isolate those infected, and stop the spread anyway.

 

[A Ram for All Seasons]

6 hours ago, RamNut said:

I wonder what happened to the 10 minute test developed by a Derby company.
 

https://www.surescreen.com/products/covid-19-coronavirus-rapid-test-cassette

A quick turnaround test is really important.

 

These pregnancy testing kit-style methods aren't much use for accurate mass testing. The antibodies that bind to Immunoglobulin M are what you're really interested in, because they are formed at the beginning of the infection and then disappear fairly quickly, The test you refer to has a specificity of only 97.8 % for IgM, whereas the new antibody test launched on Monday by Roche has a specificity of 99.8%. It is a bit more complicated though.

The antibodies that bind to Immunoglobulin G are responsible for long-term immunity, but IgG antibodies take about a fortnight to appear, by which time you are usually either recovered,  on a ventlator or dead. The test developed in Derbyshire might be useful for a quick test at a doctor's surgery or on the night shift on a hospital ward when the lab is closed but not much else.

I'm not an expert, but I used to work for a company that produces animal feed additives, and I know they had similar issues with the methods they used to test for toxic fungi in animal feed.

[RamNut]

5 minutes ago, A Ram for All Seasons said:

These pregnancy testing kit-style methods aren't much use for accurate mass testing. The antibodies that bind to Immunoglobulin M are what you're really interested in, because they are formed at the beginning of the infection and then disappear fairly quickly, The test you refer to has a specificity of only 97.8 % for IgM, whereas the new antibody test launched on Monday by Roche has a specificity of 99.8%. It is a bit more complicated though.

The antibodies that bind to Immunoglobulin G are responsible for long-term immunity, but IgG antibodies take about a fortnight to appear, by which time you are usually either recovered,  on a ventlator or dead. The test developed in Derbyshire might be useful for a quick test at a doctor's surgery or on the night shift on a hospital ward when the lab is closed but not much else.

I'm not an expert, but I used to work for a company that produces animal feed additives, and I know they had similar issues with the methods they used to test for toxic fungi in animal feed.

Better to get a preliminary test result in ten minutes than no test at all, or waiting months or years for a test that takes 4 or 5 days.

its not specific but it could help to clear vast numbers of people from lockdown and then also help to  target the more specific lab tests.