rachomics Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 6 minutes ago, The Old Git said: I found the Island Influencer podcast interview with Rachel Glover quite interesting. I feel that we were lucky to have her offer of help. I should really listen to what I waffled about for a whole hour.... I hate listening to myself though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 1 hour ago, rachomics said: Asymptomatic people have just as high a viral load and potential to infect as symptomatic people. Anecdotally I would say they have a higher viral load. You have to think of them as "silent spreaders" as they're infected, highly infectious but don't know it. They develop their high viral load at the same time as symptomatic people (4-7 days after exposure) but don't show any symptoms. We (scientists) don't yet know why some people develop symptoms and others don't. I posted this back in April on an experiment the Italians carried out using a whole town! On 4/21/2020 at 8:04 PM, P.K. said: As part of a research effort the Italians tested all 3,300 inhabitants of the town of Vo. This identified various asymptomatic folks who were spreading the virus and so they quarantined them. No more virus cases in Vo. So no matter what you do there is always a risk. Mr Quayle binned off the Day 7 test to increase the level of protection from 94% to 99%. In a way I don't blame him. The rate of infection in Manchester was 223 per 100k last week. This week it is 495 per 100k. So the chances of an infected person coming to the island from M-town has more than doubled. Still, better Mancunians than Scousers I suppose.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dog's Dangly Bits Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, P.K. said: I posted this back in April on an experiment the Italians carried out using a whole town! So no matter what you do there is always a risk. Mr Quayle binned off the Day 7 test to increase the level of protection from 94% to 99%. In a way I don't blame him. The rate of infection in Manchester was 223 per 100k last week. This week it is 495 per 100k. So the chances of an infected person coming to the island from M-town has more than doubled. Still, better Mancunians than Scousers I suppose.... How does it increase the level of protection? Not testing on day 7 wont stop people having it and mixing with other members of their household. Also, it doesn't double the chance. Unless you know the demographic and can demonstrate the consistency of that demographic coming here. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 Just now, The Dog's Dangly Bits said: How does it increase the level of protection? Not testing on day 7 wont stop people having it and mixing with other members of their household. Also, it doesn't double the chance. Unless you know the demographic and can demonstrate the consistency of that demographic coming here. It's about managing the level of proportionate risk whilst getting on with life. Unless you want to send every visitor into solitary isolation and keep this whole situation going for longer than is necessary then you have to allow it to work it's way throughout the population, whilst safeguarding the vulnerable and trying to maintain some semblance of an economy. We are all going to have to encounter this virus at some stage to develop herd immunity. It's about doing it in a manner that works for us all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTail Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 1 minute ago, Lxxx said: We are all going to have to encounter this virus at some stage to develop herd immunity. It's about doing it in a manner that works for us all. Obviously not including the dead ones 😁 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Cambon said: As for stopping the testing, so what? From here you can only travel to five destinations. As four of those five are in Channel Islands red zones, if you live in Bankers beloved Channel Islands, who from Monday will have to isolate for fourteen days anyway. No test on arrival required. We don't have a traffic lights system, so on the grounds that four out of five places are high risk, simply withdraw the test. Actually Jersey do insist on a test on entry for everyone - even if they are going to have to self-isolate for 14 days. There are good reasons for this - those who know they are infected will hopefully take even more care, especially if they are sharing facilities with other people. And if you know people might likely to develop Covid-19 you can keep a closer check on them for their own benefit - particularly if they are isolating on their own. They will also know to isolate any travel contacts - just because someone is coming from a Green departure point they might still have been in a Red location in the last 14 days and so have to automatically isolate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 9 minutes ago, Lxxx said: We are all going to have to encounter this virus at some stage to develop herd immunity. It's about doing it in a manner that works for us all. The Lancet 19/9/20 on developing herd immunity: "Publics face the same problem with COVID-19 in 2020 that they faced with diphtheria in the 1920s: whether a contagious droplet infection can be controlled, without a vaccine or therapeutic, through social distancing and hygiene alone. Studies in June and July cast doubt on prospects for herd immunity: despite months of exposure, antibody surveys found a low seroprevalence, less than 10%, in cities in Spain and Switzerland. Commentators in The Lancet concluded that “In light of these findings, any proposed approach to achieve herd immunity through natural infection is not only highly unethical, but also unachievable”. If you ever struggle to get to sleep the full piece is here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31924-3/fulltext 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 34 minutes ago, P.K. said: I posted this back in April on an experiment the Italians carried out using a whole town! So no matter what you do there is always a risk. Mr Quayle binned off the Day 7 test to increase the level of protection from 94% to 99%. In a way I don't blame him. The rate of infection in Manchester was 223 per 100k last week. This week it is 495 per 100k. So the chances of an infected person coming to the island from M-town has more than doubled. Still, better Mancunians than Scousers I suppose.... 🤮 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 1 hour ago, rachomics said: ...and I so wanted a long illustrious career at the DHSC I run my own company so my involvement with the DHSC to set up and keep the COVID19 lab running wasn't exactly in the professional career plan... Compared to DHSC employees and civil servants, I'm in the position where I don't need to worry about the mortgage payments if I get sacked for questioning things as I have my day-job at my company. So I question things. On the flip side of that I'm pretty sure there are a few in the DHSC and civil service who would love to see my head on a spike for daring to speak up. OK. So first of all, I only suggested a day 13 test (in a tweet) to make a point about how we're effectively losing data that had become quite useful. It's useful to know how many people are coming back and then subsequently develop infections during their isolation. The day 7 test gave us that surveillance data and then it was effectively taken away without discussion. It would be great to keep up the pathogen surveillance by, say, randomly asking a proportion of returnees to take a test so we can continue to see what proportion of people in isolation develop COVID19. I said in the tweets that a day 7 test would detect ~94% cases, the figure for a day 14 test is ~99% cases. So even with "gold standard" there is the 1/100 risk that someone will still be infectious at the point they finish their isolation. Asymptomatic people have just as high a viral load and potential to infect as symptomatic people. Anecdotally I would say they have a higher viral load. You have to think of them as "silent spreaders" as they're infected, highly infectious but don't know it. They develop their high viral load at the same time as symptomatic people (4-7 days after exposure) but don't show any symptoms. We (scientists) don't yet know why some people develop symptoms and others don't. What proportion of people have cleared the virus and test negative at 14 days post exposure? Of those that do test positive at 14 days post exposure, how many are still infectious, and how many are testing positive by virtue of ‘persistent shedding’ (of viral RNA fragments) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 26 minutes ago, NoTail said: Obviously not including the dead ones 😁 It’s my understanding that Covid only proves fatal to those who are already at risk due to comorbidities. In a similar way that a severe bout of influenza might do during a regular winter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rachomics Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 1 minute ago, Lxxx said: It’s my understanding that Covid only proves fatal to those who are already at risk due to comorbidities. In a similar way that a severe bout of influenza might do during a regular winter. Unfortunately not true. Many people who ended up hospitalised were previously young and healthy. There also appear to be long-lasting side-effects of infection (now termed "long Covid") 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Flint Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 1 hour ago, rachomics said: I'm definitely getting the feeling that there are a few about who don't like having someone around who is civil service savvy (I spent 15 years at DEFRA in the UK) and who has been professionally trained by way of a scientific PhD to ask awkward questions to fish for the real answer. In the UK civil service they wouldn't feel so threatened as it's more normal. 1 hour ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said: Well they won't like it here. There are a number of high level civil servants who have got there via dead man's shoes and simply wont want questioning. THIS is crucially important. I’m not surprised that Rachel has picked up on this. It is a glowing example of the hubris and arrogance that exists throughout the public service senior management here. As Rhumsaa rightly indicated, it is why the place goes forward at the speed of a tortoise. Its really sad. One can only hope that one of those individuals might read this, and take a long hard look at the state of things, then feel compelled to do something about it 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 Just now, rachomics said: Unfortunately not true. Many people who ended up hospitalised were previously young and healthy. There also appear to be long-lasting side-effects of infection (now termed "long Covid") I specifically made the point of fatality not hospitalisation. Unless I am missing some data? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 7 minutes ago, Derek Flint said: THIS is crucially important. I’m not surprised that Rachel has picked up on this. It is a glowing example of the hubris and arrogance that exists throughout the public service senior management here. As Rhumsaa rightly indicated, it is why the place goes forward at the speed of a tortoise. Its really sad. One can only hope that one of those individuals might read this, and take a long hard look at the state of things, then feel compelled to do something about it In your dreams! The I'm alright Jack mentality runs deep. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Derek Flint said: THIS is crucially important. I’m not surprised that Rachel has picked up on this. It is a glowing example of the hubris and arrogance that exists throughout the public service senior management here. As Rhumsaa rightly indicated, it is why the place goes forward at the speed of a tortoise. Its really sad. One can only hope that one of those individuals might read this, and take a long hard look at the state of things, then feel compelled to do something about it Like create another MARS scheme that's even more stupidly and unnecessarily generous than the last one...? Edited October 10, 2020 by P.K. 1 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.