Coronavirus

[Mostyn6]

1 hour ago, SchtivePesley said:

That's obvious aye - but you do realise that more testing means you get more of your "normal" world back (and sooner)?

That world doesn't return because we have lower numbers just because we stop testing - it returns when we have an effective way of tracking and controlling the transmission by identifying every case as early as possible through testing

 

There’s no true test at the moment. Even the person who created the test said it’s not suitable. 

[jimmyp]

12 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

There’s no true test at the moment. Even the person who created the test said it’s not suitable. 

If your talking about Kary Mullis the inventor of the PCR test and winner of a Nobel peace prize for said invention, then no he very definitely didn’t say that it was not suitable. 

You should perhaps do a little more research on the subject.

 

[Albert]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

7000+ today.

Surf's up, dude.

Oh no. 

5 hours ago, maxjam said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/01/perfect-storm-austerity-behind-130000-deaths-uk-ippr-report

Austerity killed 100k+ can you name one person?

The left were all over austerity when it suited their agenda.  Austerity will feel like getting your paycheck late in comparison to whats coming.

What is with people downplaying concerns by labelling people they disagree with as 'left' or 'right'. 

The UK, objectively, bungled the first wave, and as a result saw one of the worst death rates in Europe. Outside observers suggested that the wave was bigger than given credit too, based on the case fatality rate being near 10%, suggesting about 90%+ of infections were missed based on the estimates from elsewhere of the infection fatality rate, as well as other concerns deaths misattributed to other causes. 

From an economic perspective, austerity has major issues, but they are separate from what's happening now. You can see from other countries that when lockdowns and controls are implemented well, they are able to economically recover quicker. Even the UK's former colonies are doing better on this front, including New Zealand and Australia. Even Canada, which shares a border with the USA, is doing a lot better. To put that another way, in terms of countries that the Queen is the head of state, the UK is doing just about the worst. 

The UK would be doing better economically if they'd dealt with the lockdowns better at first. The reality is that the pandemic will wreck economies regardless of if you lockdown or not. Lockdowns are more extreme, but get you out of that quicker. 

7 hours ago, TexasRam said:

It’s not 

It by definition is, as pointed out by Eddie. Today, the UK recorded its largest ever daily total. This is a second wave, and it's already looking bigger than the first. You'll see people who don't understand basic maths suggesting 'but it's only cases, no deaths', but it takes time for the disease to kill people, usually around 2 weeks. Weekly deaths are already on the rise, and within the next month we'll likely see that spike, unfortunately. 

The hope is that the reason this second wave looks so much larger is that more testing is being done, which will mean that it's not quite as severe as it looks at first. The UK shouldn't be facing a ~10% case fatality rate, and that suggests the first wave was a lot larger in terms of infections than were caught. That's the key variable here. 

[Mostyn6]

4 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

If your talking about Kary Mullis the inventor of the PCR test and winner of a Nobel peace prize for said invention, then no he very definitely didn’t say that it was not suitable. 

You should perhaps do a little more research on the subject.

 

Okay, I was simplifying. If you want me to clarify, he said words to the effect of “the test can see a virus but not identify it”. Which basically means Aids can be misidentified as COVID-19 by using this testing method. 
 

"It is important to note that detecting viral material by PCR does not indicate that the virus is fully intact and infectious, i.e. able to cause infection in other people. The isolation of infectious virus from positive individuals requires virus culture methods. These methods can only be conducted in laboratories with specialist containment facilities and are time consuming and complex.”

[Albert]

29 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

There’s no true test at the moment. Even the person who created the test said it’s not suitable. 

There are people pushing some wacky stuff to hide the true extent of this second wave aren't there? 

No, the PCR tests are effective, with a low rate of false positives and negatives. The only concern with testing is where there aren't enough being done. The gold standard for controlling the disease is a strong testing regime with contact tracing. This is how New Zealand and Australia are where they are. 

[Albert]

3 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

Okay, I was simplifying. If you want me to clarify, he said words to the effect of “the test can see a virus but not identify it”. Which basically means Aids can be misidentified as COVID-19 by using this testing method. 
 

"It is important to note that detecting viral material by PCR does not indicate that the virus is fully intact and infectious, i.e. able to cause infection in other people. The isolation of infectious virus from positive individuals requires virus culture methods. These methods can only be conducted in laboratories with specialist containment facilities and are time consuming and complex.”

Yes, this is why you can get some false positives and negatives. The rate of them is, however, extremely low. As in, low enough that it won't adversely impact the statistics. 

[Norman]

Just now, Albert said:

Yes, this is why you can get some false positives and negatives. The rate of them is, however, extremely low. As in, low enough that it won't adversely impact the statistics. 

70 percent accurate according to the NHS. 

I would not call that extremely low. Eddie will start saying how much you love hyperbole. 

[Mostyn6]

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

Yes, this is why you can get some false positives and negatives. The rate of them is, however, extremely low. As in, low enough that it won't adversely impact the statistics. 

 

1 minute ago, Norman said:

70 percent accurate according to the NHS. 

I would not call that extremely low. Eddie will start saying how much you love hyperbole. 

With amplification of 40-50 to achieve the reading. 

[jimmyp]

13 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

Okay, I was simplifying. If you want me to clarify, he said words to the effect of “the test can see a virus but not identify it”. Which basically means Aids can be misidentified as COVID-19 by using this testing method. 
 

"It is important to note that detecting viral material by PCR does not indicate that the virus is fully intact and infectious, i.e. able to cause infection in other people. The isolation of infectious virus from positive individuals requires virus culture methods. These methods can only be conducted in laboratories with specialist containment facilities and are time consuming and complex.”

No he didn’t. 

Post a link to his direct quote, or as you put it words to the effect of.

 

 

[Norman]

Hugh Pym on the BBC 10 O'clock news stated that hospital admittance for ill people suffering from Coronavirus has fallen for the 4th day in a row.

[Albert]

4 minutes ago, Norman said:

70 percent accurate according to the NHS. 

I would not call that extremely low. Eddie will start saying how much you love hyperbole. 

I assuming that you mean the NHS document that pops up first on google, from March. Estimates for the accuracy vary, but 70% is an extremely low estimate. In lab conditions, the tests had an accuracy of around 95%. You can look up these measurements if you wish, such as here.

[Mostyn6]

7 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

No he didn’t. 

Post a link to his direct quote, or as you put it words to the effect of.

 

 

Look, i don’t quite trust the data, you’re happy to accept what you’re told. I would be wasting my time. 
 

I’m happy to go quiet and let you claim a victory. 

[ariotofmyown]

12 minutes ago, Norman said:

Hugh Pym on the BBC 10 O'clock news stated that hospital admittance for ill people suffering from Coronavirus has fallen for the 4th day in a row.

Sweet as, the restrictions must be working!

[Norman]

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

I assuming that you mean the NHS document that pops up first on google, from March. Estimates for the accuracy vary, but 70% is an extremely low estimate. In lab conditions, the tests had an accuracy of around 95%. You can look up these measurements if you wish, such as here.

Ah, the good old lab conditions. The place where all the factors that actually go on in the world do not matter. 

Even if we agreed it is somewhere between 70 and 95 percent, I would say that would change the statistics somewhat. 

[Norman]

3 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Sweet as, the restrictions must be working!

Unless you've spent the last 2 days arguing that there is a lag between catching it and falling very ill from it. 

Let's be honest, nobody knows. It surprised me though, so thought I'd share it. Don't really have an opinion on it. 

[jimmyp]

3 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

Look, i don’t quite trust the data, you’re happy to accept what you’re told. I would be wasting my time. 
 

I’m happy to go quiet and let you claim a victory. 

It wouldn’t be a waste of your time. You would learn how a PCR test works and how we use them today. 

You may well then question your current source for information on PCR testing.

[maxjam]

30 minutes ago, Albert said:

What is with people downplaying concerns by labelling people they disagree with as 'left' or 'right'.

That was a nod back to participants of the old politics thread in which austerity causing deaths was bandied around from time to time.

 

30 minutes ago, Albert said:

The UK, objectively, bungled the first wave, and as a result saw one of the worst death rates in Europe. Outside observers suggested that the wave was bigger than given credit too, based on the case fatality rate being near 10%, suggesting about 90%+ of infections were missed based on the estimates from elsewhere of the infection fatality rate, as well as other concerns deaths misattributed to other causes. 

From an economic perspective, austerity has major issues, but they are separate from what's happening now. You can see from other countries that when lockdowns and controls are implemented well, they are able to economically recover quicker. Even the UK's former colonies are doing better on this front, including New Zealand and Australia. Even Canada, which shares a border with the USA, is doing a lot better. To put that another way, in terms of countries that the Queen is the head of state, the UK is doing just about the worst. 

The UK would be doing better economically if they'd dealt with the lockdowns better at first. The reality is that the pandemic will wreck economies regardless of if you lockdown or not. Lockdowns are more extreme, but get you out of that quicker. 

 

I think you are downplaying the effects of international lockdowns the results of which we are only just starting to see;

https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-economy-recession-unemployment-disaster/

 

[Norman]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

That was a nod back to participants of the old politics thread in which austerity causing deaths was bandied around from time to time.

 

I think you are downplaying the effects of international lockdowns the results of which we are only just starting to see;

https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-economy-recession-unemployment-disaster/

 

And the long term problems countries will face of there is no vaccine in the next 2 or 3 years. Or ever. 

But then, countries with high infection rates and deaths will be in severe trouble if it is proven you can catch it more than once. 

Is there any data on that? 

[maxjam]

Just now, Norman said:

And the long term problems countries will face of there is no vaccine in the next 2 or 3 years. Or ever. 

But then, countries with high infection rates and deaths will be in severe trouble if it is proven you can catch it more than once. 

Is there any data on that? 

Thats a key point, lockdowns only work if there is a vaccine - hide from the problem until you can vaccinate against it.

No vaccine = inevitable 2nd and 3rd waves etc, more lockdowns and economic misery.  Either that or herd immunity.  What a choice ?

[Norman]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Thats a key point, lockdowns only work if there is a vaccine - hide from the problem until you can vaccinate against it.

No vaccine = inevitable 2nd and 3rd waves etc, more lockdowns and economic misery.  Either that or herd immunity.  What a choice ?

Imagine if you had done a really good job of stopping the spread of Covid, only for there to be no vaccine in sight. 

What would you do? Never open the borders? Lockdown measures lasting years? Economic growth stunted for years?

Very tough decisions to make.