Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

The home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
Forum rules
This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452466

Postby XFool » October 23rd, 2021, 11:42 am

gryffron wrote:
XFool wrote:Sage minutes show warning that earlier intervention would reduce need for more stringent and longer-lasting measures
"Ministers need to act early to counteract rising Covid infections, the government’s scientific advisers have said while suggesting that failure to do so could mean harsher interventions will be required this winter."

OK. But as shown earlier in this thread, the increase in cases is almost entirely in school age children.
So increasing measures for adults will have negligible effect.
Closing schools will damage education (more).
Schoolchildren don't suffer bad outcomes from covid anyway.

No? But as it is infectious [ :roll: ] they could provide a 'hot reservoir' that passes it on to their families etc.

gryffron wrote:So what EXACTLY do you want the govt to do?

Here's some suggestions:

Covid: Doctors call for Covid Plan B to start in England

BBC News

But hey! In the spirit of the times: "Doctors! What do they know?" (Or alternatively: "It's the BBC! What can you expect?")

BTW. I heard a businessman this morning on R4 explaining how they have by themselves already decided to partly close down their office and revert to home working, rather than waiting on any further direction from the government.

gryffron wrote:IMO Boris is doing exactly the right thing. ie. Nothing!

Well, he's had plenty of practice with that. So he should at least be good at it by now.

pje16
Lemon Half
Posts: 6050
Joined: May 30th, 2021, 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 1843 times
Been thanked: 2066 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452470

Postby pje16 » October 23rd, 2021, 11:50 am

pje16 wrote:
Hallucigenia wrote:
pje16 wrote:Is it likely that the blood antobdoies change from positive to negative and back to positive, or is the testing at fault
Is anyone on here a doctor


Not a medical doctor, but I have been involved with both running similar tests and their R&D.

Given the current high levels of virus circulating in the population, particularly if you've been exposed to kids, it's quite possible that you've been exposed to a mild dose of virus that's been enough to stimulate the production of new antibodies without making you ill.

And the antibody tests are not perfect - in particular this (far from perfect) study found that the tests made by Abbott had 12.5% false negatives after 40 days.

So it's certainly possible you had a false negative.

The only antibody test I had for SARS2 was negative although I'm near-certain I had Covid-19 before lockdown1, but the test was nearly 9 months afterwards so I wasn't completely surprised.


Thank you, that makes a lot of sense
not been exposed to kids
BUT was at a 2 day conference with almost 300 people in one room (well spaced out)
We jokingly called it a superspreader event, but AFAIK no-one at has Covid since the event
I was tested two days after the event, so perhaps I had a mild dose and the "army" kicked into action
Thanks once again
PS useful link !


Just to add a bit more info
I have had typical cold symptoms for almost 2 weeks
Sore throat, followed by blocked nose, followed by hacking cough ( all on successive days but none at the same time)
BUT have felt 100% ok in myself, ie feeling perfectly normal so it's not like a typical cold
A couple of people have mentioned to me the possibility of the covid vaccine kicking in to help fight other foreign bodies ie cold germs
this article suggest there may be some truth in that
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/ne ... ommon-cold

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18679
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6563 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452491

Postby Lootman » October 23rd, 2021, 12:57 pm

servodude wrote:
gryffron wrote:Schoolchildren don't suffer bad outcomes from covid anyway


It's true that not many schoolkids (relative to older people) suffer acutely from COVID but some do, some die

So?

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452502

Postby XFool » October 23rd, 2021, 2:37 pm

Covid: UK faces ‘another lockdown Christmas if we don’t act soon’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... t-act-soon

Prof Peter Openshaw, a prominent adviser to government on Covid, says there is ‘no point in delaying’

"Prof Peter Openshaw, a member of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag), said case numbers and death rates were currently unacceptable, and re-emphasised the importance of measures such as working from home and mask wearing as part of efforts to control the spread of Covid."


[Currently, TLF is working like Molasses]

Hallucigenia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2618
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 3:03 am
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452504

Postby Hallucigenia » October 23rd, 2021, 3:04 pm

gryffron wrote:OK. But as shown earlier in this thread, the increase in cases is almost entirely in school age children.
So increasing measures for adults will have negligible effect.

Not true - it will still help, given that current levels of Covid are already having a significant impact on hospitals and in particular intensive care units. So it's not "entirely" in school children. Arguing against masking is like arguing against sunscreen or seat belts, we know they work and they're not a huge inconvenience compared to locking down at Christmas.
gryffron wrote:Closing schools will damage education (more).

So what EXACTLY do you want the govt to do?

But closing schools is not what's being proposed, other than as a last-ditch method that could have been avoided by less intrusive measures such as :
Masking all teachers
Masking secondary kids
CO2 monitoring to identify places in schools that need ventilation
Spending £10-20/child on portable HEPA filters.

gryffron wrote:Schoolchildren don't suffer bad outcomes from covid anyway.

What is the basis of that assertion? Because it's not true - try telling the family of the late Jorja Halliday that schoolchildren don't suffer bad outcomes. Yes they are rare, but it does happen, and that's aside from 5 a week ending up in intensive care, and 1 in 7 get long Covid.

Image

csearle
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4764
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:24 pm
Has thanked: 4812 times
Been thanked: 2083 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452506

Postby csearle » October 23rd, 2021, 4:03 pm

Lootman wrote:
servodude wrote:
gryffron wrote:Schoolchildren don't suffer bad outcomes from covid anyway


It's true that not many schoolkids (relative to older people) suffer acutely from COVID but some do, some die

So?

So, in answer to your short question, if I understood it correctly our gryffron made an assertion with which our servodude disagreed. He made a counter-assertion in order to refute it.

That behaviour is in the nature of a discussion board. In a sense it is the main point of discussing these things in public so questionable stuff does not remain unchallenged. C.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18679
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6563 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452511

Postby Lootman » October 23rd, 2021, 5:39 pm

csearle wrote:
Lootman wrote:
servodude wrote:It's true that not many schoolkids (relative to older people) suffer acutely from COVID but some do, some die

So?

So, in answer to your short question, if I understood it correctly our gryffron made an assertion with which our servodude disagreed. He made a counter-assertion in order to refute it.

That behaviour is in the nature of a discussion board. In a sense it is the main point of discussing these things in public so questionable stuff does not remain unchallenged. C.

What I was attempting with my one word post was not so much a question as a point. Gryffron pointed out that there are minimal adverse effects amongst children and servodude said that some get some do get sick and die. That is true but it is a very small number. I submit that, whilst every death is an individual tragedy, collectively the small number of deaths experienced is not sufficient to warrant changing policy.

In other words the government's goal should not be zero deaths because the cost, effort and disruption involved in achieving that would be massive, and it probably still would not be possible. Rather the goal is and should be an acceptably low number of deaths.

csearle
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4764
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:24 pm
Has thanked: 4812 times
Been thanked: 2083 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452514

Postby csearle » October 23rd, 2021, 5:44 pm

Lootman wrote:What I was attempting with my one word post was not so much a question as a point. Gryffron pointed out that there are minimal adverse effects amongst children and servodude said that some get some do get sick and die. That is true but it is a very small number. I submit that, whilst every death is an individual tragedy, collectively the small number of deaths experienced is not sufficient to warrant changing policy.

In other words the government's goal should not be zero deaths because the cost, effort and disruption involved in achieving that would be massive, and it probably still would not be possible. Rather the goal is and should be an acceptably low number of deaths.
Bloody hell, that was an awful lot to extrapolate from those two letters and question mark. Actually it was that question mark that led me, wrongly it seems, to think it was a, er, question. C ;)

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18679
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6563 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452516

Postby Lootman » October 23rd, 2021, 5:46 pm

csearle wrote:
Lootman wrote:What I was attempting with my one word post was not so much a question as a point. Gryffron pointed out that there are minimal adverse effects amongst children and servodude said that some get some do get sick and die. That is true but it is a very small number. I submit that, whilst every death is an individual tragedy, collectively the small number of deaths experienced is not sufficient to warrant changing policy.

In other words the government's goal should not be zero deaths because the cost, effort and disruption involved in achieving that would be massive, and it probably still would not be possible. Rather the goal is and should be an acceptably low number of deaths.
Bloody hell, that was an awful lot to extrapolate from those two letters and question mark. Actually it was that question mark that led me, wrongly it seems, to think it was a, er, question. C ;)

Fair point. I did harbour a hope that servodude might explain why even a small number of deaths is intolerable, and whether he believes that zero deaths are in any way achievable. Perhaps he will still explain - not sure what time it is in Australia right now.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452527

Postby XFool » October 23rd, 2021, 6:36 pm

Lootman wrote:What I was attempting with my one word post was not so much a question as a point. Gryffron pointed out that there are minimal adverse effects amongst children and servodude said that some get some do get sick and die. That is true but it is a very small number. I submit that, whilst every death is an individual tragedy, collectively the small number of deaths experienced is not sufficient to warrant changing policy.

Err... Did I mention it's infectious, folks?

Despite repeated denials and after all this time, this 'infectious' concept is still causing difficulties to some!

onthemove
Lemon Slice
Posts: 540
Joined: June 24th, 2017, 4:03 pm
Has thanked: 722 times
Been thanked: 471 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452555

Postby onthemove » October 23rd, 2021, 9:04 pm

Hallucigenia wrote:
gryffron wrote:Schoolchildren don't suffer bad outcomes from covid anyway.

What is the basis of that assertion? Because it's not true - try telling the family of the late Jorja Halliday that schoolchildren don't suffer bad outcomes.


Well the regulator was on the fence for a while on whether to approve the vaccines for children or not.

The concern being that it would be unethical to give children a vaccine in order to protect others, rather than the child themself, and when considering the child themself (not the wider adult population), the regulator considered the risks for the child from covid to be so low, that it put those risks on a par with the (similarly low) risks from the vaccine, making it touch and go whether it would be ethical to approve the vaccine at all for school children.

Of course there are always exceptions, but it's generally accepted by scientists and the regulators that the risk to children from covid is 'low'.

Shoving a picture of a single, unfortunate child who has died from covid into people's faces does nothing to help have a balanced, rational debate.

I'm pretty sure if someone similarly threw a picture in your face of someone who died from the vaccine or became seriously ill from it, you'd be pretty critical of them for exactly the same reason.

Since the regulator was on the fence whether to even recommend the vaccine to children because of the low risks to the children themselves, then I think it's a very valid point that if the number of cases is high primarily because of infections in school children, and the number of cases making the transfer into adults from them is either low, or at least not translating into a massive risk in hospitalisations, then I think that's a very valid point, and does paint the supposedly 'high' rate of infections in a very different light.

To be quite honest, I'm getting quite fed up with the ever more pessimistic stance a number of people - including scientists - are taking.

I mean, let's get real... the majority of people in the main at risk groups have been fully vaccinated. I don't agree with compulsion (I've happily had the vaccine myself), but the NHS needs to adjust - covid ain't going away.

Last year we created a large number of 'Nightingale' hospitals as an emergency measure. Unfortunately these have now been dismantled, and from what I understand were virtually unused.

Well, covid is here to stay... that's going to put extra pressure on the NHS for sure, but for crying out loud, we've known about covid for 18+ months now.

The NHS is going to need extra capacity. End of story. I know this is going slightly off topic now, but why the heck can't the government just bite the bullet and put an extra 1p on income tax at least in the short term to help both the NHS adapt to the new normal that they will have to cope with, along with all the other things that are falling apart in this country at the minute.

It's gone beyond a joke now.

The NHS is supposed to be there as a public service.

But more and more it feels like we are now here to serve the NHS.

Every aspect of our lives now being dictated by the impact it will have on the NHS. And I'm now getting sick and tired of it.

I'm getting sick and tired of being told intensive care departments are near capacity. Well, every blimmin winter prior to covid we were also being told that.

Why, 18months on, are intensive care departments not now being given the extra funding by now to cope with the additional cases of covid that are inevitably going to 'leak' through an (almost) fully vaccinated population?

The past 12 months or so, the government and the NHS should already have been planning for some incremental extra capacity to cope with covid on top of the flu, etc.

I'd rather pay an extra 1p on income tax to allow the NHS to expand it's capacity to deal with covid going forwards, than the ridiculous position we seem to be in at the minute, where it doesn't feel like there's any extra investment in NHS capacity to cover covid, and instead we're still being threatened with mask wearing mandates and lockdowns.

Our lives are being dictated in order to serve the NHS.

That is completely the wrong way around.

The NHS is a public service, to serve the people. Not vice versa.

Sure, when covid came out of the blue, some short term adjustments to help the NHS were probably justified (though I don't agree they should have been legally mandated), but come on, 18 months on with most of the population vaccinated, and a huge amount now known about covid. Enough is enough.

The balance now needs to be strongly back to the NHS serving us, not vice versa.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18679
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6563 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452556

Postby Lootman » October 23rd, 2021, 9:06 pm

XFool wrote:
Lootman wrote:What I was attempting with my one word post was not so much a question as a point. Gryffron pointed out that there are minimal adverse effects amongst children and servodude said that some get some do get sick and die. That is true but it is a very small number. I submit that, whilst every death is an individual tragedy, collectively the small number of deaths experienced is not sufficient to warrant changing policy.

Err... Did I mention it's infectious, folks?

So is the flu but we accept a certain level of deaths from flu. We don't shut down society because the flu kills a few (thousand?) people every year.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452612

Postby dealtn » October 24th, 2021, 10:10 am

XFool wrote:
Lootman wrote:What I was attempting with my one word post was not so much a question as a point. Gryffron pointed out that there are minimal adverse effects amongst children and servodude said that some get some do get sick and die. That is true but it is a very small number. I submit that, whilst every death is an individual tragedy, collectively the small number of deaths experienced is not sufficient to warrant changing policy.

Err... Did I mention it's infectious, folks?

Despite repeated denials and after all this time, this 'infectious' concept is still causing difficulties to some!


What repeated denials? Who exactly do you think doesn't understand that Covid is infectious?

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7084
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3793 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452615

Postby Mike4 » October 24th, 2021, 10:43 am

Lootman wrote:
XFool wrote:
Lootman wrote:What I was attempting with my one word post was not so much a question as a point. Gryffron pointed out that there are minimal adverse effects amongst children and servodude said that some get some do get sick and die. That is true but it is a very small number. I submit that, whilst every death is an individual tragedy, collectively the small number of deaths experienced is not sufficient to warrant changing policy.

Err... Did I mention it's infectious, folks?

So is the flu but we accept a certain level of deaths from flu. We don't shut down society because the flu kills a few (thousand?) people every year.


And you know perfectly well 'flu kills only "a few (thousand?)" with NO public health precautions to limit transmission.

And COVID has killed 160,000 in two years with all the measures you oppose.

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452619

Postby servodude » October 24th, 2021, 10:50 am

dealtn wrote:
XFool wrote:
Lootman wrote:What I was attempting with my one word post was not so much a question as a point. Gryffron pointed out that there are minimal adverse effects amongst children and servodude said that some get some do get sick and die. That is true but it is a very small number. I submit that, whilst every death is an individual tragedy, collectively the small number of deaths experienced is not sufficient to warrant changing policy.

Err... Did I mention it's infectious, folks?

Despite repeated denials and after all this time, this 'infectious' concept is still causing difficulties to some!


What repeated denials? Who exactly do you think doesn't understand that Covid is infectious?


Aerosols, aerosols have always been the problem
They spread this with their "dick-nosing"
- and pretending they're answering different words in posts than those what were wrote
- Humpty Dumpty Sitzpinkler Aerosols
I think that's who

-sd

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452621

Postby dealtn » October 24th, 2021, 10:55 am

Mike4 wrote:
Lootman wrote:
XFool wrote:Err... Did I mention it's infectious, folks?

So is the flu but we accept a certain level of deaths from flu. We don't shut down society because the flu kills a few (thousand?) people every year.


And you know perfectly well 'flu kills only "a few (thousand?)" with NO public health precautions to limit transmission.

And COVID has killed 160,000 in two years with all the measures you oppose.


Isn't it a consideration though that the majority of those deaths occurred before vaccines were rolled out?

There will be a balance somewhere, but there is certainly a logic to arguing that if society "accepts" (in the sense it didn't adopt a series of public restrictions) those annual few thousand flu deaths, then it may also "accept" a few thousand Covid deaths, if that is the likely case with a largely vaccinated population. Is there a reason a Covid death is worse somehow than a non-Covid death?

Is it not the case that society (via its elected leaders) undergo a practical examination and policy implementation where the costs and benefits to society are considered? Obviously that is a difficult exercise, and affected individuals and families, often pay a higher price than the collective society bears, but that isn't much different to all manner of other preventable deaths, and the societal costs in preventing them.

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452623

Postby servodude » October 24th, 2021, 10:57 am

Lootman wrote:
csearle wrote:
Lootman wrote:So?

So, in answer to your short question, if I understood it correctly our gryffron made an assertion with which our servodude disagreed. He made a counter-assertion in order to refute it.

That behaviour is in the nature of a discussion board. In a sense it is the main point of discussing these things in public so questionable stuff does not remain unchallenged. C.

What I was attempting with my one word post was not so much a question as a point. Gryffron pointed out that there are minimal adverse effects amongst children and servodude said that some get some do get sick and die. That is true but it is a very small number. I submit that, whilst every death is an individual tragedy, collectively the small number of deaths experienced is not sufficient to warrant changing policy.

In other words the government's goal should not be zero deaths because the cost, effort and disruption involved in achieving that would be massive, and it probably still would not be possible. Rather the goal is and should be an acceptably low number of deaths.


Griffin said nothing about "minimal"
He said kids " don't have bad outcomes" and if you look at all the words in my most you might understand what I said

Really if you let Oflootman help you with a dictionary you might be able to troll more effectively

-sd

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 8911
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 1309 times
Been thanked: 3667 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452632

Postby redsturgeon » October 24th, 2021, 11:18 am

Moderator Message:
This discussion has descended into argumentative behaviour aim at individuals rather than facts and as such not within the remit of this board. Please desist, anymore off topic post will be removed.

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452693

Postby Bouleversee » October 24th, 2021, 3:09 pm

"Vaccinated twice, infected once - and still at risk" is the heading of an article in the Sunday Times which you should be able to get if you Google it and which I suggest you all read. The sub-heading is "As new strains appear, the number of people falling ill multiple times has started to increase". Some have had the virus 3 times. I am not convinced that the recent advice from the NHS to the highly clinically vulnerable that they no longer needed to shield was well founded.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#452697

Postby dealtn » October 24th, 2021, 3:31 pm

Bouleversee wrote:"Vaccinated twice, infected once - and still at risk" is the heading of an article in the Sunday Times which you should be able to get if you Google it and which I suggest you all read. The sub-heading is "As new strains appear, the number of people falling ill multiple times has started to increase". Some have had the virus 3 times. I am not convinced that the recent advice from the NHS to the highly clinically vulnerable that they no longer needed to shield was well founded.


Anyone, be they highly critically vulnerable, or not, that are not convinced they no longer need to shield can take the practical option of shielding.


Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests