Coronavirus

[Ken Tram]

And ... what does a positive test actually mean?

Is someone infectious at the point of the test?

Is it possible to be infectious, but get a negative result (if the test is done properly)?

I remember one if you guys telling me how two tests are done in Australia, and that people can test negative on the first test, but positive a week later. Was the implication that the person had had the virus during the first test, but only tested positive on the second test; or had the virus, but was not infectious during the first test?

[1of4]

21 minutes ago, angieram said:

Interesting. They make everyone sit for 15 minutes after the jab at our surgery to make sure you don't get a reaction.

Not aimed at you particularly, 1of4 but there are a lot of people now getting vaccines. Are you all 75+ or are they getting to the younger ones in some parts? 

My wife and I had our jab at the same time. The person carrying out the procedure, ask if one of us was going to be driving, which was me, then told us we could wait the 15 minutes sat in the car, before driving home. 

Age wise I'm 65. Looking at the figures for the number of vaccination carried out across the East Midlands, Derbyshire are doing much better in getting people vaccinated, so have probably got further down the priority list than the areas around us.

[angieram]

3 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

My wife and I had our jab at the same time. The person carrying out the procedure, ask if one of us was going to be driving, which was me, then told us we could wait the 15 minutes sat the car, before driving home. 

Age wise I'm 65. Looking at the figures for the number of vaccination carried out across the East Midlands, Derbyshire are doing much better in getting people vaccinated, so have probably got further down the priority list than the areas around us.

We're in Derbyshire. It took until last week for my 88 year old cousin to be vaccinated and I don't know anyone under 75 without a serious underlying condition who has been called in for a vaccine yet. That's why I am asking. 

It seems pretty inconsistent even over relatively local areas.

Thanks for sharing, though.

[BIllyD]

13 minutes ago, angieram said:

You see I don't understand this, we are still doing 75+. 

Unless it is her occupation that is a priority.

 

Under 50 and just been done. Some areas are running at different groups I think, when I went there were clearly still over 75s

[Albert]

20 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

How many days back do they go in Australia?

(I did assume that NHS Test and Trace has only got the capacity to go back two days - but, that doesn't mean that one shouldn't voluntarily isolate for "positive" contacts from more than two days before.)

They've gone back more than 14 days in a few cases, the key in their system is determining if someone was infectious and when. 

12 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

And ... what does a positive test actually mean?

That someone has the SARS CoV-2 virus in their system. 

12 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

Is someone infectious at the point of the test?

In almost all cases, though some old infections can be picked up, but are usually weak positives. 

12 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

Is it possible to be infectious, but get a negative result (if the test is done properly)?

Yes, it's why 14 day quarantine, with tests at the start, middle and end, is the gold standard. Usually, however, you're not infectious until you actually test positive though. 

12 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

I remember one if you guys telling me how two tests are done in Australia, and that people can test negative on the first test, but positive a week later. Was the implication that the person had had the virus during the first test, but only tested positive on the second test; or had the virus, but was not infectious during the first test?

The implication is that it's in the incubation period, the person has the virus, but it's still replicating to the point of showing symptoms. You can be infectious before testing positive. 

[Ken Tram]

8 minutes ago, angieram said:

We're in Derbyshire. It took until last week for my 88 year old cousin to be vaccinated and I don't know anyone under 75 without a serious underlying condition who has been called in for a vaccine yet. That's why I am asking. 

It seems pretty inconsistent even over relatively local areas.

Thanks for sharing, though.

I heard on the radio that because some people do not turn up for their appointments; and in order to avoid wasting vaccines; surgeries will contact other people, who might not be in the priority category, to ensure that all of the vaccines get used.

This may explain why a younger (or less old) person was invited for a vaccination.

[1of4]

Going by the number of cars coming and going, while I was waiting the 15 minutes in the velodrome car park.  The staff must be trying to set a record for the number of vaccination to be carried out in one place.

[Sith Happens]

26 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Going by the number of cars coming and going, while I was waiting the 15 minutes in the velodrome car park.  The staff must be trying to set a record for the number of vaccination to be carried out in one place.

Overflow for KFC ?

[Sith Happens]

42 minutes ago, angieram said:

We're in Derbyshire. It took until last week for my 88 year old cousin to be vaccinated and I don't know anyone under 75 without a serious underlying condition who has been called in for a vaccine yet. That's why I am asking. 

It seems pretty inconsistent even ovherer relatively local areas.

Thanks for sharing, though.

My Mother in law is 73, not clinically vulnerable but had hers today 

[rammieib]

1 hour ago, angieram said:

We're in Derbyshire. It took until last week for my 88 year old cousin to be vaccinated and I don't know anyone under 75 without a serious underlying condition who has been called in for a vaccine yet. That's why I am asking. 

It seems pretty inconsistent even over relatively local areas.

Thanks for sharing, though.

My mum is 71 and had her vaccine today. (Booked last Weekend)

[Gone]

And we wonder why people think these restrictions are stupid. Also proposed are all Football Matches to be played without Footballs, Swimming pools to reopen but without water and Cinema’s open but without being able to show films. However I know for a fact people on this thread will think this is an excellent idea and makes sense as it’s following the science?

[Albert]

19 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

And we wonder why people think these restrictions are stupid. Also proposed are all Football Matches to be played without Footballs, Swimming pools to reopen but without water and Cinema’s open but without being able to show films. However I know for a fact people on this thread will think this is an excellent idea and makes sense as it’s following the science?

I'm curious. Let's say that the decision was made that alcohol couldn't be served at venues until 1 June 2021. Would you prefer that pubs were not allowed to open until then, or that they were allowed to open earlier, but unable to serve alcohol until 1 June 2021? 

[Sith Happens]

29 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

And we wonder why people think these restrictions are stupid. Also proposed are all Football Matches to be played without Footballs, Swimming pools to reopen but without water and Cinema’s open but without being able to show films. However I know for a fact people on this thread will think this is an excellent idea and makes sense as it’s following the science?

Seems its already been dismissed as a non starter

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/covid-pub-lockdown-restrictions-curfew-b1798507.html

 

[Chester40]

9 minutes ago, Albert said:

I'm curious. Let's say that the decision was made that alcohol couldn't be served at venues until 1 June 2021. Would you prefer that pubs were not allowed to open until then, or that they were allowed to open earlier, but unable to serve alcohol until 1 June 2021? 

Good question.... 

Personally if pubs can make it work then obviously that would be up to them. I would go for a Sunday dinner, but otherwise I wouldnt go so I'm not sure how sensible it would be for them to open? 

[Sith Happens]

1 minute ago, Chester40 said:

Good question.... 

Personally if pubs can make it work then o

Did you fall asleep while typing your response ? (no jokes ? )

[Gone]

14 minutes ago, Albert said:

I'm curious. Let's say that the decision was made that alcohol couldn't be served at venues until 1 June 2021. Would you prefer that pubs were not allowed to open until then, or that they were allowed to open earlier, but unable to serve alcohol until 1 June 2021? 

I’m curious you really need to ask, I’d keep them shut until they could serve alcohol. In fact I’m shocked that we are being told they may open without alcohol, it’s that bat poo crazy stuff that makes people stick two fingers up to the restrictions. I know you’ll come back saying well actually in SW Oz they did this and now no one gets Ill ever they all live until they’re 1000 years old blah blah blah, please don’t bother.

[Gone]

3 minutes ago, Sith Happens said:

Seems its already been dismissed as a non starter

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/covid-pub-lockdown-restrictions-curfew-b1798507.html

 

Let’s hope so and a bit of common sense is finally applied 

[Albert]

9 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

I’m curious you really need to ask, I’d keep them shut until they could serve alcohol. In fact I’m shocked that we are being told they may open without alcohol, it’s that bat poo crazy stuff that makes people stick two fingers up to the restrictions. I know you’ll come back saying well actually in SW Oz they did this and now no one gets Ill ever they all live until they’re 1000 years old blah blah blah, please don’t bother.

Fair enough, so you don't feel that businesses should be able to manage their own financial risks, and open in such conditions if they feel it would be beneficial? 

As to Australia, no, we haven't had to even think about such ideas, as the government didn't fail in every way imaginable in managing this pandemic.

[Sith Happens]

5 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Let’s hope so and a bit of common sense is finally applied 

I take what i read in fairness with a massive pinch of salt, in moments of boredom yesterday (sat in my car for 15 mins after my jab) i read the Sun website and read 3 stories about lifting of restrictions that all contradicted each other because they had come from different 'experts'.

In fairness if the pathway out of lockdown is being discussed id be surprised that almsot every option hasnt been discussed in some manner.

In fairness for pubs which serve food, if they are able to sell alcohol for outdoor settings, but serve meals indoors in april but no alcohol, even if thats just for a month until they fully open, id say that would be a start.

[Gone]

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

Fair enough, so you don't feel that businesses should be able to manage their own financial risks, and open in such conditions if they feel it would be beneficial? 

As to Australia, no, we haven't had to even think about such ideas, as the government didn't fail in every way imaginable in managing this pandemic.

Yes I do, however I don’t see the point. Also last time I checked I didn’t see you could catch Covid from Alcohol so it’s again and as my original post noted a completely nonsensical notion.

@Albert off topic, but are you a Derby fan?