piebaps Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 10 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said: Nob Oooooh get her. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 23 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said: Bbc news. All UK over 18s vaccinated by September. We might need to speed up a bit Complete lie! U K health minister spelled out to Piers Morgen that uk policy was to vaccinate all over 50s and see how it affected deaths and hospitalisations before mving ahead with the rest of the population. Anything like the above headline are about encouraging the population. It will not happen! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tetchtyke Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 19 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said: I only wish I could see my mum who died 35 years ago. That post was meant to show that we can have different viewpoints and not be dicks. Less than half an hour it took for you to prove otherwise. Once again you assume anyone who disagrees hasn't had any family difficulties. On the subject of being a dick, I mentioned my own family difficulties in a previous post. Your response was the "haha" emoji, because clearly me not seeing my kid for a year is fucking *hilarious*. My point was quite simple: you don't last long without food, you can last a long time without seeing family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowman Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 7 minutes ago, Cambon said: Complete lie! U K health minister spelled out to Piers Morgen that uk policy was to vaccinate all over 50s and see how it affected deaths and hospitalisations before mving ahead with the rest of the population. Anything like the above headline are about encouraging the population. It will not happen! It's reported on the front page tomorrow, quoting bbc interview If this actually is true it will mean that the island will be on the same timescale 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatiotheturd Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 1 minute ago, tetchtyke said: Once again you assume anyone who disagrees hasn't had any family difficulties. On the subject of being a dick, I mentioned my own family difficulties in a previous post. Your response was the "haha" emoji, because clearly me not seeing my kid for a year is fucking *hilarious*. My point was quite simple: you don't last long without food, you can last a long time without seeing family. Are you stupid? I never said you can't buy food, I said you shouldn't make unnecessary trips to buy food. Show me where I said you can't buy food and I will buy you a Mars bar. I also haven't seen one of my kids for over a year. Last saw him last Christmas. That one doesn't actually bother me so much because he understands and I can facetime and talk on the phone. My disabled daughter not seeing her gran etc is very different Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 10 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said: Are you stupid? I never said you can't buy food, I said you shouldn't make unnecessary trips to buy food. Show me where I said you can't buy food and I will buy you a Mars bar. I also haven't seen one of my kids for over a year. Last saw him last Christmas. That one doesn't actually bother me so much because he understands and I can facetime and talk on the phone. My disabled daughter not seeing her gran etc is very different Your village is missing you... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 hour ago, jaymann said: But refer to my earlier post in this thread: - Still claiming border/day 1 testing at only 7% detection. - Still claiming 14 days isolation as the gold standard. - Still saying that Day 1 and 13 testing wouldn't have stopped two recent cluster outbreaks as there's always a 1% chance of cases slipping through. 45 minutes ago, Cambon said: All three are correct. The error was in allowing returning people to isolate at home with other family members, all isolating, for 14 days. All three are wrong and wrong in ways that have been repeatedly explained on here never mind elsewhere. And grasp of the basic science or even common sense would tell people that. On the other hand, the 'error' you describe is pretty meaningless - who people co-isolate with is irrelevant in real terms. They can still catch the virus off an arrival whether they can with them, were on the Island or arrived from Mars. We have the worrying situation where the Minister in charge of health and the only people he seems to listen to simply don't seem to understand science or how it works. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bees Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Yes! It worries me that they waffle such lame nonsense about not having super Rach back, while it’s all going to pot! What’s is point in giving the tests to the UK to be included in figures that mean absolutely nothing to us at all. The sooner they shut up and listen to Rach the better. She was their credibility! 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 43 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: All three are wrong and wrong in ways that have been repeatedly explained on here never mind elsewhere. And grasp of the basic science or even common sense would tell people that. On the other hand, the 'error' you describe is pretty meaningless - who people co-isolate with is irrelevant in real terms. They can still catch the virus off an arrival whether they can with them, were on the Island or arrived from Mars. We have the worrying situation where the Minister in charge of health and the only people he seems to listen to simply don't seem to understand science or how it works. Would it be correct to say day 1 after infection has a very low accuracy rate? Testing on day 1 of arrival could be any number of days after infection, so is that where the confusion lies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaymann Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 25 minutes ago, Gladys said: Would it be correct to say day 1 after infection has a very low accuracy rate? Testing on day 1 of arrival could be any number of days after infection, so is that where the confusion lies? The Day 1 statistic of 7% the Health Minister quotes is based solely on Day 1 of border so impossible to know when that is in someone's infection cycle. Could be day 1, day 4, day 8, anything. But the 7% estimated by PHE dates back to June as I recall and was an estimate with no evidential basis. Since then, we know much more. Our very own Day 1 positives must be flagging up more than7% of people having Day 1 tests right now. Day 1 after infection very unlikely to be shedding and thus very unlikely to be positive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 5 hours ago, jaymann said: The Day 1 statistic of 7% the Health Minister quotes is based solely on Day 1 of border so impossible to know when that is in someone's infection cycle. Could be day 1, day 4, day 8, anything. But the 7% estimated by PHE dates back to June as I recall and was an estimate with no evidential basis. Since then, we know much more. Our very own Day 1 positives must be flagging up more than7% of people having Day 1 tests right now. Day 1 after infection very unlikely to be shedding and thus very unlikely to be positive. Thanks, but that is kind of my point really, is PHE's day 1 the same as our day 1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 hour ago, Gladys said: Thanks, but that is kind of my point really, is PHE's day 1 the same as our day 1? Yes. im sure that @wrightycan explain better than me. But. Let’s say that for 99% of Covid cases you get infected on day 1 and the infection ends ends on day 14. There are a number of options. You are detectable from the moment you are infected on day 1 to the time you recover on day 14. Then a day 1 test catches 100% You are detectable n 7 of the 14 days. Then a day 1 test catches 50% you are detectable on only one of the 14 days. Then a day 1 test catches 7%. Of course being detectable and being infectious may not exactly overlap. Day 1 testing inform some of the risk to people we travel and isolate with. Pre travel testing is identical in principle. And stops a number of people from travelling. However you can become infected between test and arrival or you may be infected but not detectable. i think that infectiousness is greatest up to 3 days before symptoms show to 7 days after they start, in symptomatic people. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 59 minutes ago, John Wright said: Yes. im sure that @wrightycan explain better than me. Allow me. For our testing strategy the days are referring to arrival time. We have no idea if or when arrivals were infected - if we did they wouldn’t need a test. All these figures of 7% and 99% refer to days post infection/exposure. I posted here before that the median time to test positive is 5 days, that means that by then 50% of positive subjects will test positive. A day one test, on its own, is not much help. Combine it with day 6/7 and day 13 and if an arrival is positive you are almost certain to detect it. There is still a 1% chance that they were infected on the day of arrival (in ASDA before boarding, for example) and thus day 13 after arrival is their day 13 after infection. In this scenario however, it is unlikely they will be infectious as viral culture studies suggest up to 10 days from exposure is the limit. They could, I suppose, have infected a family member in the previous fortnight who could still be infectious. Aside from absolutely closing the borders there is no 100% guaranteed testing regime to prevent reintroduction of covid. The system we have now though is close, and it’s more likely that any lapses are due to breaking rules rather than system design. All this is based on perfect testing with 100% sensitivity and specificity, which doesn’t exist, and doesn’t take into account the so-called new variant (which it’s been suggested may have a longer incubation period, although I’ve not seen this, but does seem to be more easily transmissible - the ‘spike protein’ probably fits the receptor a bit better, or something like that) 2 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 9 hours ago, horatiotheturd said: You can clearly go and buy essential food, once a fortnight should do it. That must be some amazing milk, bread, vegetables if they last a fortnight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonatti Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 9 hours ago, horatiotheturd said: You can clearly go and buy essential food, once a fortnight should do it. Lets not get carried away. Food shopping, providing masks are worn, social distancing is stuck to, and hands sanitized in/out will carry minimal risk. Working in a small kitchen preparing take out food is another matter . How is this still allowed. What checks are being carried out to ensure social distancing is maintained. I'm completely puzzled how take-outs are allowed to continue and aren't deemed high risk. 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.