Roger Mexico Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 1 minute ago, Manx Yeller said: Hardly useless. Say there's an asymptomatic case who goes into school, I'd prefer a test that had a 40% chance of picking it up rather than the 0% chance of them realising they have it since they are asymptomatic. Surely we should be using every possible means to avoid transmitting cases. If this finds even only 1 or 2 cases that wouldn't be found otherwise, I don't see why it wouldn't be used Because it gives you false security that those in the school are Covid-free, while all you are actually doing is reducing the number of carriers a bit (and the ones that get through will probably be the asymptomatic ones). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 4 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: During the course of today the number of cars around on the roads that I've seen (during work) and the number of people out and about, sometimes with no sign of any social distancing, it would make me wonder if there's actually a lockdown in place at present. Agreed, a lot busier in and around Onchan than yesterday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxas Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 4 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: During the course of today the number of cars around on the roads that I've seen (during work) and the number of people out and about, sometimes with no sign of any social distancing, it would make me wonder if there's actually a lockdown in place at present. Exactly. We were out on our essential walk with our hound yesterday, giving the other pavement users space and generally trying to be decent human beings. A jogger ran up from behind us and passed so close you could feel and smell his breath and sweat. Absolutely no thought for anyone else Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 6 minutes ago, Manxas said: Exactly. We were out on our essential walk with our hound yesterday, giving the other pavement users space and generally trying to be decent human beings. A jogger ran up from behind us and passed so close you could feel and smell his breath and sweat. Absolutely no thought for anyone else If only you could have caught the fit bastard! I suppose another option would have been to... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Yeller Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 5 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: Because it gives you false security that those in the school are Covid-free, while all you are actually doing is reducing the number of carriers a bit (and the ones that get through will probably be the asymptomatic ones). That can be managed though with the message behind it. If any child is showing symptoms, they stay off school and get the gold standard test, even if the previous flow test said they were ok. Those that go and have no symptoms, test them a couple of times a week. If it highlights any cases then surely that's a good thing. I still can't see the downside of it. If all I'm doing is "reducing the number of carriers a bit", surely that's what we are trying to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 Genomics So the results from a week ago show the unexplained cases were related through transmission from the SPCo cluster. So using the WHO/Manx definition they aren’t community spread. Given how slavishly they follow this absurd definition the risk is that if St Rachel had reported that in next to real time we still wouldn’t be in lock down. Be very careful of assumed magic wands and what you wish for! 1 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowMan Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 33 minutes ago, pongo said: Is it too much to expect that most people would do the right thing out of respect for the rest of the community? Well as most of them aren’t SPC workers then yes I would assume that they will all do the right thing and will not need to be monitored. Unlike SPC workers clearly who can do their own thing and are never checked up on anything! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 Looks like obesity is one of biggest causes of COVID deaths, probably why BoJo is on diet! https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/obesity-warning-as-report-shows-nine-out-of-10-covid-19-deaths-have-been-in-countries-with-high-rates-of-obesity-12235256 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 (edited) 38 minutes ago, John Wright said: Genomics So the results from a week ago show the unexplained cases were related through transmission from the SPCo cluster. So using the WHO/Manx definition they aren’t community spread. Given how slavishly they follow this absurd definition the risk is that if St Rachel had reported that in next to real time we still wouldn’t be in lock down. Be very careful of assumed magic wands and what you wish for! But if they'd had the sense to get Rachel to help out with the genomics, then they would have sense not to use their daft and dishonest definition of community cases. Both arise from the same problems - flattering the egos of a few is seen as more important than the health of the many. Edited March 4, 2021 by Roger Mexico TYpo 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Yeller Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 12 minutes ago, John Wright said: Genomics So the results from a week ago show the unexplained cases were related through transmission from the SPCo cluster. So using the WHO/Manx definition they aren’t community spread. Given how slavishly they follow this absurd definition the risk is that if St Rachel had reported that in next to real time we still wouldn’t be in lock down. Be very careful of assumed magic wands and what you wish for! Very true John, on the other hand, unfortunately, we'll never know whether genomics working alongside track and trace to point out paths of transmissions and where missing links might have occurred would have been able to nip this in the bud without the need for a lockdown... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 34 minutes ago, Manx Yeller said: Hardly useless. Say there's an asymptomatic case who goes into school, I'd prefer a test that had a 40% chance of picking it up rather than the 0% chance of them realising they have it since they are asymptomatic. Surely we should be using every possible means to avoid transmitting cases. If this finds even only 1 or 2 cases that wouldn't be found otherwise, I don't see why it wouldn't be used That is a fair comment, which is why they get used. It depends on the situation you are in. The concern is that a false negative test will influence the way those people behave making it more likely that they will spread the virus. If the false negative rate was 20% or so, no doubt that the benefit of picking up 80% outweighs the downside of the remaining 20% behaving in a riskier way, but when the false negative rate is 60% it isn't as clear. I guess it is horses for courses. At the moment, they have decided here that it wouldn't be helpful, but they have also said that might change in the future when the focus turns to mitigation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 Was Josh Stokes not invited to the briefing? ( Maybe Trump banned him for his blog)? Doh! Quayle I meant. Also, in Howards final brief, He referred to The Primary school in Onchan? Did he let slip of a problem at Onchan School? Or did he down grade Bemahauge to primary school? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 43 minutes ago, Roxanne said: I didn't know how much I missed that buzz until i saw that. Did the lead singer, Butler?, model his hairstyle on Natalie Imbruglia? Not quite the struggle she had keeping the greasy Bang hanging down her face! Must use this 2 mth lockdown to clear my Hi Fi! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Yeller Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 6 minutes ago, Newbie said: That is a fair comment, which is why they get used. It depends on the situation you are in. The concern is that a false negative test will influence the way those people behave making it more likely that they will spread the virus. If the false negative rate was 20% or so, no doubt that the benefit of picking up 80% outweighs the downside of the remaining 20% behaving in a riskier way, but when the false negative rate is 60% it isn't as clear. I guess it is horses for courses. At the moment, they have decided here that it wouldn't be helpful, but they have also said that might change in the future when the focus turns to mitigation I'm just a great believer that using their "war" analogy, we should use every weapon we can. As long as you understand why it might not be effective and can mitigate any potential risk it might pose, use it. It's as I questioned the other day regarding genomics, I don't see it as the answer to everything but at the same time, I see no downside to using it so even if it only helps out every now and then, that's better in my mind than not using it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 47 minutes ago, snowman said: If someone does 4 tests per week. On that basis, if positive one of them may actually work. So they have a place - and could usefully be deployed. That does sound very logical, but I think the jury is out on their usefulness in the real world. The biggest test of them was in Liverpool where it was found that they failed to detect 60% of cases, and although it was initially thought they helped bring down infection rates, there were so many other interventions it is difficult to know. Latest opinion seems to be that in the real world setting, they actually had little impact on infection rates because of the false negatives and the way that affects behaviour. If accuracy could be improved (which is quite dependent on who takes the test - as pointed out by Roger) doubtless they could be a great help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.