IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Andy Onchan]

30 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

That's so strange.  Because you keep on claiming that all these people you know have had Covid without any symptoms and yet the number of asymptomatic cases is usually below 10% and normally much less than that.  

I'm afraid I don't believe some of the data.

A kid is routinely tested with a LFT kit and is perfectly well at the time.... until they find out they're positive. Then suddenly within the next few minutes they develop a headache and say they're feeling unwell. Unless they have their temperature taken at that point then it's only their word for it. 

[Banker]

28 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

The last guy I spoke to who was isolating was 76.  He had done a LFT before visiting someone in hospital.  No symptoms at all and says he wished he hadn't ever gone for the PCR.

It is quite simple.  The type of people who can be arsed with a PCR test are often the drama queens who want to tell everyone how ill they are.  So as soon as they generate the positive test and are asked "have you had any symptoms?" they list an occasional cough and a slight sniffle.  Any other winter they would just be going about their business as usual.

Well I know several who had bad symptoms including some elderly relatives who went for PCR so don’t believe you don’t know anyone who had symptoms!!

Fortunately they were double vaccinated & didn’t need hospital treatment 

Edited November 1, 2021 by Banker

[Roger Mexico]

2 minutes ago, Cambon said:

The only reason the asymptomatic case rate is so low is that most are not tested. Why would you take a test if you feel fine, unless you are visiting a setting that requires it, or you are told to as a close contact of someone who is positive? 

This is true - 90% of those who tested positive in the most recently reported week, did so after having a positive LFD test, which presumably they did because of symptoms.  Although 67% of PCR tests were for other reason, they were only responsible for 10% of cases.

But that's my point.  The only way you know you have Covid is to have a PCR done.  An LFD isn't enough, having a cough isn't enough, sneezing last Thursday isn't enough.  If you don't have a PCR you haven't got Covid. 

So either this amazingly unaffected group of people who all happen to know Ramseyboi don't really know they have got Covid, just suspect it, or they form a very odd subgroup of the population,

[TheTeapot]

11 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

  If you don't have a PCR you haven't got Covid. 

 

Come on now.

[Ham_N_Eggs]

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

I'm afraid I don't believe some of the data.

A kid is routinely tested with a LFT kit and is perfectly well at the time.... until they find out they're positive. Then suddenly within the next few minutes they develop a headache and say they're feeling unwell. Unless they have their temperature taken at that point then it's only their word for it. 

Why would they do that? They have to stay off school regardless.

[Ham_N_Eggs]

1 hour ago, TheTeapot said:

Come on now.

I think he got a bit excited but that one little sentence aside the rest of what he said is true. The only way you truly know if you have Covid is to take the official test. Well it certainly is in the state and most employers eyes anyway.

[Danoo]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

How can you get long term data on the risk/benefit of mass vaccination of children...without mass vaccination of children.

You can't, no-one can. You've taken my point and twisted it. 

There is virtually zero risk to a child with no underlying health conditions. We know this from the data so far. In fact it is widely accepted as beneficial to expose them to the virus at this age, because of the negligible risk, in order to develop immunity both in the child and for the wider community.

What is not known, as we have no data of any reasonable size yet, is the affects of the vaccine on a developing immune system. Therefore faced with this information it cannot reasonably pass any risk/benefit test. 

If a parent wants to take the opportunity, if they have a child with an underlying health issue, then they should be allowed to take part, understanding it is a live trial. We can then use that data to inform decisions moving forwards.

 

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Why would they do that? They have to stay off school regardless.

No idea. But it's one reason why I believe the stats are not what they say they are.

[TheTeapot]

1 hour ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

I think he got a bit excited but that one little sentence aside the rest of what he said is true. The only way you truly know if you have Covid is to take the official test. Well it certainly is in the state and most employers eyes anyway.

Yeah, I get that.

Once something is classed as a notifiable disease, do they ever get unclassified?

[Ramseyboi]

Does anybody want to explain why this is acceptable in the current climate?

 

[quilp]

2 hours ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

I think he got a bit excited but that one little sentence aside the rest of what he said is true. The only way you truly know if you have Covid is to take the official test. Well it certainly is in the state and most employers eyes anyway.

It's possible to differentiate the markers for naturally-acquired antibodies produced by actually having contracted covid at some point, and vaccine-generated antibodies by serological testing, is it not?

Probably costs a fortune. 

[momo65]

2 hours ago, Danoo said:

You can't, no-one can. You've taken my point and twisted it. 

There is virtually zero risk to a child with no underlying health conditions. We know this from the data so far. In fact it is widely accepted as beneficial to expose them to the virus at this age, because of the negligible risk, in order to develop immunity both in the child and for the wider community.

What is not known, as we have no data of any reasonable size yet, is the affects of the vaccine on a developing immune system. Therefore faced with this information it cannot reasonably pass any risk/benefit test. 

If a parent wants to take the opportunity, if they have a child with an underlying health issue, then they should be allowed to take part, understanding it is a live trial. We can then use that data to inform decisions moving forwards.

 

No. There is virtually no SHORT TERM risk to children without underlying health conditions. Nor do we know the effect of the virus on immature immune systems. From what we do know the vaccine appears to be safe whereas we can't say that for the virus

Of course you've already said those children with such underlying conditions are in effect expendable

[hissingsid]

Friends of mine have just had Covid, wife had flu like symptoms ok after a week just left with a bad cough and no sense of taste or smell, husband had it really bad, breathing problems, sick etc, aches and pains still suffering two weeks on no appetite feels like sh…e .   Both were jabbed which was fortunate, especially in his case.    I have seen them since they came out of isolation and they both look really awful.    It is not to be taken lightly these were two pretty fit people.

[quilp]

3 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

Does anybody want to explain why this is acceptable in the current climate?

 

Which explanation would you like? What is the "current climate" as of today anyway? There's still an extremely contagious virus out there, it's a clinical setting with very probably an immunocompromised patient ot two. Children's ward/Infection Control probably see it as lessening the risk of transmission, including any other respiratory viruses presently doing the rounds.

Does 'erring on the side of caution' actually require an explanation..? It is what it is, what would you suggest Einstein..? 

[The Voice of Reason]

I’m afraid I think I’m getting a little left behind with all this.

I have been feeling fine through all this in the last eighteen month or so and have not left the Island but should I have been taking tests, the lateral flow thing and the other one?

Serious question. I’m v confused.